RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            08 JUNE 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040000526


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer Prater               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen Fletcher                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John Denning                  |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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, that his undesirable discharge be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, via a statement signed by him, but written by
another individual based on her conversations with the applicant, that his
life has been very difficult.  He states that he was raised by an abusive
father, and never taught any coping skills to deal with the anger and
frustration that his father generated within him.  He states he was unhappy
about the trouble he got into but could not seem to stop misbehaving even
though he knew better.  He notes that although his great grandmother taught
him self-respect he could not figure out how to get it when he kept
reacting poorly to authority.

3.  He states that after his great grandmother died he and his brother were
sent to live with their mother in Mississippi and that after getting into
trouble they were sent to a reform school.  He states that he knew he had
to change his ways and wanted to go into the Army to improve his situation
as his mother and great grandmother had tried to teach him.

4.  He notes he did well in basic training and was told he would make a
good Soldier if he could "toe the line."  After being assigned to Fort
Lewis, he states he initially had trouble adjusting but then found that he
and his commander got along very well.  However, after that commander was
reassigned the new commander had no tolerance or understanding of his
"flippant attitude" and because he was angry and frustrated he felt he
would get into serious trouble if he did not get away from the unit.  He
notes his request for reassignment was continually denied.

5.  Ultimately he began a series of AWOL (absent without leave) periods and
when President Kennedy was assassinated it "totally blew [his] mind."  He
was upset, frustrated, angry and felt that the whole world had turned
upside down.  He states he went AWOL in June (1963) but returned in
September and wanted to try yet again to do his duty.  He was court-
martialed and agreed to his punishment and was encouraged when he was told
that he could earn an honorable discharge if he served his 6 month
sentence.  However, something went wrong, and there were problems with his
records, they were lost or misplaced and when his records were found they
discovered that his initial enlistment had expired and he was told he had
to leave immediately.  He states he was "bounced out of the Army because
[his] original enlistment had expired."

6.  He states he was willing to make things right with the Army and was
promised an honorable discharge.  He regrets what happened in the Army but
maintains he was totally unprepared to deal with all that he encountered.

7.  He states he is now very ill and really needs assistance and would like
to obtain some sort of pension to help make his final years with his family
more comfortable.  He states that his talented and bright daughter needs
some support and financial aid for school.  He asks that the Board
understand what happened during his brief enlistment and upgrade his
discharge so he can be considered for some sort of pension.

8.  In addition to the statement, he submits a statement of support from
the author of his statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was inducted
and entered active duty for a period of 2 years on 19 September 1962.  He
was 20 years old at the time of his induction, had 11 years of formal
education, and aptitude scores ranging from a low of 79 to a high of 105,
with the majority of his scores in the 90s.

2.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training,
receiving excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  In February 1963 he
was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington and by May 1963 had been promoted to
pay grade E-3.

3.  In June 1963 he commenced a series of AWOL periods which resulted in
his being punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
on three separate occasions and convicted by three separate special courts-
martial.

4.  In September 1964, following the applicant's third court-martial
action, his commander initiated action to administratively separate the
applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208
for unfitness.  The commander cited the applicant's disciplinary record and
demonstrated inefficiency as the basis for his recommendation.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation,
consulted with council and waived his attendant rights.  He acknowledged
that he understood that if he received an undesirable discharge he could be
deprived of many or all rights as a veteran under both Federal and State
laws and that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in
civilian life in situations where the type of service rendered in the
military, or the type of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

6.  A 26 October 1964 neuropsychiatric evaluation noted that the applicant
related that he had spent the greater part of his early years with a
paternal great-grandmother and that his parents had separated when he was
about 3 or 4 years old.  He related that he did not see his father again
until he was 11 years old.  He related that while his early life with his
relative was quite good, he did live with his father briefly when he was
about 11 and because of difficulties with him, ran away from home.  He
related that he remained with his mother very briefly and over the next few
years he was shuttled back and forth between various relatives.  He
described his father as being somewhat cold and distant toward him and felt
no particular love toward him but that he had always been closer to his
mother.  In the evaluation the applicant denied a poor adjustment in school
but did not complete high school because he dropped out at age 19 because
of financial pressures.  He indicated that he had some minor difficulties
with the law and was sent to a training school for boys for several months,
secondary to a charge of breaking and entering.  After arriving at Fort
Lewis, the applicant related to the evaluating official that he felt he
could not adjust to the Army and that he had gone AWOL on various occasions
in order to help out his mother.  The evaluating official concluded that
the applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to know the difference
between right and wrong and to be able to adhere to the right and refrain
from the wrong.  He was mentally responsible for his actions but has a
"basically passive-aggressive character structure with a great deal of
suppressed hatred for authority…."  The physician recommended that the
applicant be separated from the military for unfitness and noted the
applicant's "well-established pattern of shirking duty."

7.  The commander's recommendation that the applicant be separated under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was approved and an undesirable
discharge was directed.

8.  On 15 December 1964 the applicant was discharged and issued an
undesirable discharge certificate.  He had 1 year, 7 months, and 18 days of
creditable service and more than 215 days of lost time due to AWOL and
confinement.

9.  In a statement submitted in support of the applicant's petition, the
author noted that she had known the applicant for a year and a half, and
noted that the applicant had been a model citizen since 1997 and has worked
hard to be a good father to his daughter and partner to his fiancée.  She
stated that the applicant "deserves serious consideration for an upgrade in
his discharge status for compassionate and humanitarian reasons.”  She
notes that the upgrade will help him to cover the financial burden of care
in case he is unable to return home after his hospitalization.

10.  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.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with military or civil authorities.  If, after examination by a
medical officer or psychiatrist, there appears to exist mental or physical
disability that is the cause of unfitness, a board of medical officers will
be convened.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

12.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within the statutory time limits to have his discharge
upgraded.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.  His successful completion of basic and
advanced individual training and his promotion to pay grade E-3 is
evidence, in spite of his background, that he was capable of honorable
service.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, he was not “bounced” out of the
Army because his contract expired, but rather, as he acknowledged in his
statement to his commander, because of his multiple incidents of misconduct
and inability to become a productive Soldier.  The evidence confirms that
the applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the
right.

3.  While his desire to correct the errors of his youth, and to provide for
his family by obtaining an honorable discharge are admirable, it does not
outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not
provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief as a
matter of equity.

4.  There is no evidence of any error or injustice in the processing of the
applicant’s administrative separation.  He was given multiple opportunities
to correct his conduct via the issuance of several Uniform Code of Military
Justice and court-martial actions.  In the absence of any error or
injustice, upgrading the applicant’s discharge on the basis of his
dysfunctional family life and current financial situation would, in effect,
be a discredit to Soldier’s with similar backgrounds and circumstances who
were able to overcome their adversities and in spite of those issues served
honorably.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JP____  ___KF __  __JD  ___  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            ____ Jennifer Prater_ ____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000526                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040608                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |