APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature and that prevented him from making rational decisions.  He submits letters of support with his application.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s youth and immaturity and his personal and family problems contributed to his misconduct.  Also, a 19 February 1964 mental status evaluation noted the applicant suffered from an “emotional instability reaction” brought on by problems with his wife back in the States divorcing him.  He suffered from many physiological problems as a result of this stress and used alcohol to get through his problems, which resulted in aggressive     anti-social behavior.  The applicant sought help through his chain of command but no help was forthcoming.

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

He was born on 22 September 1943.  He completed 9 years of formal education. He had prior National Guard service when he enlisted in the Regular Army on   20 August 1963 for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11E (Armor Crewman).  

On 27 October 1963, the applicant was assigned to Germany.

On 10 February 1964, the applicant was a self-referral for a mental health evaluation.  He had vague complaints, the most consistent of which was recurring headaches.  He expressed the desire to return to the States to check on his wife, who was suing him for divorce.  His chain of command, the chaplain and the Red Cross offered no assistance in returning him to the States.  He said he went out drinking to forget his problems.  The examining physician concluded the applicant demonstrated a long-standing pattern of emotional immaturity and instability with poor impulse control and impaired judgment but found no symptoms of overt psychosis.

On 18 November 1964, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted for 3 years.

On 4 January 1965, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without authority from his unit.
On 20 January 1965, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without authority from his unit.

On 2 February 1965, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 - 2 February 1965.

On 5 February 1965, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment.

DA Form 41, Record of Emergency Data, prepared 14 April 1965 shows the applicant as divorced.

On 26 May 1965, the applicant’s commander referred the applicant for a mental status evaluation.  On the Commander’s Report for Psychiatric Evaluation, he noted that the applicant had no problems on duty time, only after duty hours.  He also noted that the applicant had a pregnant German girl friend and that fact may have caused his misconduct.

On 28 May 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of assault, carrying a concealed weapon and one day of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to forfeit $73 pay for 6 months.

On 12 July 1965, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and capable of participating in board proceedings.

On 15 October 1965, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

The separation packet is not available.

On 23 November 1965, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed a total of 3 years, 1 month and 24 days of creditable active service and had 169 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

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

1.  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.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

3.  The applicant’s and counsel’s contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was over 21 years old at the time of his first Article 15.

4.  Counsel’s contention that the applicant’s “emotional instability reaction” was a mitigating factor in his misconduct has been noted by this Board.  However, the Board also notes that the applicant’s commander had no complaints about his on duty behavior.  It was only his off-duty behavior, apparently triggered by his drinking, that was unsatisfactory.

5.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director