2.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.  He states that it has been 32 years since his discharge and he needs his discharge upgraded for employment reasons.   

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 
27 June 1960, completed training and in November 1960 was assigned to an engineer battalion in Hawaii.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in July 1962 and reenlisted for six years on 24 August 1962.  His character and efficiency ratings while assigned to this unit were excellent.   

4.  In October 1962 the applicant was assigned to an armor battalion at Fort Benning, Georgia.  He was AWOL from 
21 November to 31 December 1962 and was arraigned, tried, and found guilty for this AWOL by a special court-martial on 24 January 1963.

5.  A 17 July 1963 report of psychiatric examination indicates that the applicant was presently confined in the stockade for an unauthorized absence of 5 months, during which time he proceeded to Fort Worth, Texas with his wife and two step-children where he worked in order to support them.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s history did not reveal any conflict with authority or difficulties with society or the law.  That official indicated that the applicant’s previous 43 day AWOL was committed in order to visit his sick wife.

6.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s difficulty appeared to stem from his wife’s illness as she could no longer work and the applicant’s salary was not enough to support her and the two children.  That official stated that it appeared to be significant that the applicant’s only offenses were involved with the financial and health circumstances involving his family.  He stated that the applicant stated he had attempted compassionate 
separation proceedings, but was told that there were no grounds for this.  The psychiatrist stated that the
applicant’s motivation for duty had been altered considerably by the change in circumstances in the family and he was not suitable for further military duty.  He recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. 

7.  On 22 July 1963 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged with an undesirable type discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  That official cited the applicant’s history of AWOL, his previous conviction by a court-martial for AWOL, and the applicant’s statement that he would continue to go AWOL until eliminated from the service.  The applicant’s commanding officer stated that the applicant was unfit for further service, that he was a chronic AWOL, and that he should be expeditiously separated in the best interest of the service.  He stated that he was recommending discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness instead of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability as recommended by the psychiatrist because of the applicant’s negative attitude and his military history.   
8.  The applicant stated that he had consulted with counsel and had been advised of the basis for the action.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under conditions other than honorable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

9.  On 2 August 1963 the applicant was arraigned, tried, and found guilty of AWOL from 3 February until 3 July 1963, and from 11 July to 12 July 1963. 


10.  On 8 August 1963 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 15 August 1963.  He had 2 years, 5 months, and 6 days of service and 256 days of lost time.

11.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the
commander determined that the best interest of the
service would be served by eliminating the individual
concerned and: reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or
develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were
unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was
impracticable, such as in cases of confirmed drug
addiction or when the medical and/or personal history
indicated that the individual was not amenable to
rehabilitation measures; or disposition under other
regulations was inappropriate.  Unfitness included
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with
military or civil authorities and an established pattern
of shirking. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a
general or honorable discharge was authorized, as
directed by the convening authority.

12.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating
enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be
taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when,
in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that: the individual was unlikely to develop
sufficiently to participate in further military training
and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's
psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not
warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability
included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders,
disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy,
defective attitude, and inability to expend effort

constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and
homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was
required and, when psychiatric indications are involved,
the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was
available.  A general or honorable discharge was
considered appropriate.  Otherwise, return to duty or
referral for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208 was directed.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s separation for unfitness and the characterization of his discharge was proper.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations.

2.  Notwithstanding the above information, the Board notes that the applicant had been a satisfactory soldier prior to his AWOL in November 1962 as evidenced by his conduct and efficiency ratings and his promotion to pay grade E-4.  The applicant’s reenlistment for six years in August 1962 indicates that he seriously considered an Army career, that he was satisfied with the Army and the Army with him.  In light of the information contained in the 17 July 1963 psychiatric report, the Board can assume with some degree of certainty that the applicant’s behavior was, in fact, a result of his concern for his family’s welfare.  While his behavior is inexcusable it is certainly understandable.

3.  The applicant could have received a general, or even an honorable, discharge for unsuitability.  The examining psychiatrist recommended a discharge for this reason, citing the applicant’s family problems as the reasons for the applicant’s actions.  The applicant’s commanding officer chose to recommend that the applicant be discharged for unfitness.  Even then, that official could have recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge, taking into consideration the applicant’s previous good record prior to November of 1972.  

4.  In view of circumstances leading up to the applicant’s discharge, and the passage of 34 years since his discharge, it would be appropriate to grant the applicant’s request and upgrade his discharge to general.
RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was discharged on 15 August 1963 with a general discharge.                

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON