RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 May2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005982


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Seema E. Salter               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. 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 that his general discharge under honorable
conditions be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he should have received a medical discharge
for bipolar disorder and depression.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of an Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System Authorization to Physician form and Attending Physician
Supplementary Statement in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or which
occurred on 15 March 1972, the date of his separation from active service.
The application submitted in this case is dated 27 July 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in Army on 31 March 1971
for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic and advanced training and was
awarded Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 76P20 (Stock Control and
Accounting Specialist).  He was discharged on 15 March 1972 with a general
discharge.

4.  The applicant's service personnel records do not contain the complete
facts and circumstances surrounding his separation from active duty for
unsuitability.

5.  On 25 January 1972, the applicant's commander initiated action to
eliminate him from the service under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
 He stated that action to separate the applicant initially began on or
about 19 October 1971; however, he attributed the delay in processing the
request to the misplacement of the applicant's medical records on two
separate occasions.



6.  On 14 February 1972, the commander recommended that the applicant be
discharged for unsuitability under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212
and that he receive a general discharge.  The reason cited by the commander
was the recommendation of two Army psychiatrists who examined the applicant
due to immaturity and irrational behavior.  The commander noted that both
psychiatrists recommended that the applicant be discharged for
unsuitability.  The medical reports from the two psychiatrists are not
available in the applicant's military personnel records.

7.  On 14 February 1972, the unit commander stated in a memorandum that the
rehabilitative transfer requirement established by Army Regulation 635-212
would not be beneficial according to medical authorities due to the
applicant's irrational behavior.

8.  On 14 February 1972, the applicant consulted with the legal counsel in
Germany and was advised of his rights and the effect of a waiver of those
rights.

9.  The applicant was also advised of the basis for his separation under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The applicant indicated that he
consulted with appropriate counsel, that he waived consideration of his
case by a board of officers, that he did not provide statements on his own
behalf, and that he waived representation by military counsel.

10.  The applicant also indicated that he was aware that should he be
issued an undesirable discharge, he may be ineligible for any or all
benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws and that he may
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on that
undesirable discharge.

11.  On 22 February 1972, the commander forwarded his request to the
approval authority and recommended that the applicant receive a general
discharge under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

12.  On 23 February 1972, the separation authority waived rehabilitative
transfer requirements and directed discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(2) with issuance of a General Discharge
Certificate and returned to the Continental United States for final
separation processing.

13.  On 15 March 1972, the applicant was discharged from active duty.  He
completed 11 months and 15 days of creditable active service.




14.  The applicant provided a copy of an Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System Authorization to Physician.  This document shows that the
applicant's attending physician noted that he was incapacitated for the
performance of his public employment on 22 April 2004.  The physician also
stated that the applicant's prognosis was fair to good and that the
applicant should not return to his job driving people.

15.  The applicant also provided a copy of an Attending Physician
Supplementary Statement, dated 3 July 2003, which shows that the
applicant's complaint was depression.  This document also shows that the
attending physician recommended disability and advised that the applicant
was not able to return to work.

16.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records which indicate that he
was diagnosed with an unfitting medical condition prior to his discharge.

17.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge.

18.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and
procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for
unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the
discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and
behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical
authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or
general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority
based upon the individual's entire record.

19.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.

20.  Paragraph 3-31a of Army Regulation 40-501(Standards of Medical
Fitness) dated December 1960, stated that character and behavior disorders
(i.e., personality disorders) were considered to render an individual
administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.
Interference with performance of effective duty would be dealt with through
appropriate administrative channels.




DISSCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general discharge under honorable
conditions should be changed to a medical discharge.  Evidence shows the
applicant was seen by two Army psychiatrists who diagnosed character and
behavior disorders which did not render him eligible for referral to the
physical disability system.

2.  The applicant submitted documents from his attending physician which
shows that he was being treated for a bipolar disorder.  However, these
documents only show the applicant's most recent medical condition and there
is no correlation between the diagnosis made by his attending physician and
his military service.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(2) was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The authority and narrative reason for the applicant's separation are
correct and applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

5.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the type of discharge issued to him was in error or
unjust

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 March 1972, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 14 March 1975.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __ses___  __sap___  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.



                                        Melvin H. Meyer
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005982                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720315                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212.                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.8600                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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