APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that his discharge under conditions other than honorable be upgraded to general or honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was never offered any counseling. He had character and behavior disorders stemming from mental and emotional incapacity and immaturity to adapt to military life.  He was too young and inexperienced to understand the consequences of his behavior, out of touch with reality, had difficulty coping with the Army, and could not get his priorities in proper perspective.  He wanted to be a good soldier and tried to do his duty but could not.  He requested an early dismissal and psychiatric counseling but was denied.

The applicant submits letters from two ministers and a city commissioner, who do state that the applicant has emotional and mental difficulties for which he has been and is being treated.  They support his request to have his discharge upgraded.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was inducted into the Army on 24 May 1968, and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for basic training, which he completed sometime in July of that year.

On 29 August 1968 the applicant was arraigned, tried and found guilty by a special court-martial for wrongful appropriation of a radio from a fellow soldier.  On 
18 November 1968 he was arraigned, tried and found guilty by a special court-martial for AWOL and for escape from correctional custody.

A 7 January 1969 report of psychiatric evaluation indicates that the applicant had an emotional unstable personality, manifested by reacting with excitability and ineffectiveness when confronted with minor stress.  His judgment was undependable under stress, and his relationship to other people was fraught with fluctuating emotional attitudes.  He was not committed to any productive goals and was completely unmotivated for further service.  He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  There were no mental defects to warrant disposition through medical channels.  His longstanding character and behavior disorder would tend to exist permanently.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant could not be an effective soldier and recommended that he be administratively separated.

On 10 January 1969 the applicant’s commanding officer requested that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  That official stated that the applicant had been involved in frequent discreditable incidents, had received two special courts-martial, was sent to his present unit for correctional training and treatment, however, the applicant had demonstrated a complete disregard for military authority, and his attitude and his failure to react to attempted rehabilitation precluded further retention.  The applicant had received considerable counseling but did not respond favorably to this counseling.  The applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under conditions other than honorable discharge that he might receive.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 10 January 1969 the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed that the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

A 13 January 1969 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that his health was good.  

The applicant was discharged on 16 January 1969 at the Army correctional training facility, Fort Riley, Kansas.  He had 5 months and 19 days of service and 64 days of lost time.

On 23 April 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

A 14 November 1995 psychiatric evaluation from a health system in Kissimmee, Florida indicates that the applicant was a known chronic schizophrenic who was admitted to that hospital because of homicidal ideation and agitated behavior to anybody in front of him.  He was depressed when admitted. The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant lacked good formal judgment and had no insight at all on what was going on around him.  He was extremely paranoid.  He did not relate to suicide but definitely related to homicide.  He was diagnosed as schizophrenic, paranoid.   

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth
the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted
personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in
pertinent part, that an individual was subject to
separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents
of a discreditable nature with civil or military
authorities; sexual perversion including but not limited
to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent
acts with or assault on a child; drug addiction or the
unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or
marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an
established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just
debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents
(including failure to comply with orders, decrees or
judgments).  When separation for unfitness was
warranted an undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s separation was appropriate considering the facts of this case.  The applicant’s conduct, his lack of motivation, and his complete disregard for authority and all things military made him unfit for military service.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, the evidence of record shows that he did receive considerable counseling.  In view of the applicant’s numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations at that time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s age and the letters of support, neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested. 
The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.
  
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director