RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           1 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000074


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Walter T. Morrison            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for
an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Board’s conclusion that there
was no evidence to show that he was any less qualified than other Soldiers
with the same AFQT who successfully completed service is a moot point.  He
claims that the Board failed to address how many Soldiers with the same
AFQT did not finish service.

3.  The applicant provides a doctor’s statement in support of his
reconsideration request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003084845 on 21 October 2003.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 17 February 1969.  The applicant’s Military
Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of a Report of Medical
Examination (SF 88), dated 15 May 1968, that documents the pre-induction
examination taken by the applicant.  This report shows the applicant had a
normal psychiatric evaluation and that he was cleared for induction by
competent medical authority.

3.  On 13 March 1970, the applicant was separated under the provisions
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by
court-martial and received an UD.  At the time, he had completed 5 months
and 21 days of creditable active military service and accrued 219 of time
lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  There is no indication that
he suffered from a mentally or physically disqualifying medical condition
at the time of his discharge.

4.  The applicant provides, as new evidence, a doctor’s statement, dated
23 March 2004.  It was issued by a physician from the New Beginnings Health
Care Facility, Topeka, Kansas, and indicates the applicant has been treated
at the facility for depression and anxiety since 1991, when his condition
was first diagnosed.

5.  The doctor’s statement also indicated that the applicant’s history
reveals he suffered an abusive childhood in an alcoholic family and
suffered his first periods of anxiety in the first grade.  He further
states that by the time the applicant reached high school, his anxiety had
worsened and it has continued on through his adult years.  He concludes
that the applicant’s condition had an onset around age 6 and has spanned
his entire adult life.

6.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply
in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.
 Chapter 3 provides guidance on presumptions of fitness.  It states that
the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of
unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to
compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the
requirements of the duties the soldier reasonably may be expected to
perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded
because he suffered from a mental condition that impaired his ability to
serve and the supporting medical documents he provided were carefully
considered.  However, an insufficient evidentiary basis has been found to
support granting the requested relief.

2.  As indicated in the Board’s original decisional document, the
applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with
applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met,
the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of short
and undistinguished service.

3.  Further, as indicated in the Board’s original conclusions, the evidence
of record confirms the results of the applicant’s pre-induction medical
examination found no disqualifying psychiatric condition.  Further, the
record contains no evidence showing he suffered from a mentally or
physically disqualifying condition at the time of his separation
processing.
4.  By regulation, the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself,
justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each
case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical
disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier
reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  The applicant’s military medical record provides no
indication that he suffered from a physical or mental condition that
rendered him unfit to perform his military duties at the time of his
discharge.

5.  As the applicant was informed in the original Board decisional
document, 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 any new evidence or argument that would
satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WTM_  __WDP _  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2003084845, dated 21 October 2003.




            ____Walter T. Morrison ___
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000074                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AER2003084845 - 2003/10/21              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/03/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C10                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of CM                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]