RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007093


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 an earlier appeal
that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was involuntarily committed to
a state hospital and was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia
shortly after his separation from the service.  He further states that his
chain of command changed their decision to give him a general discharge
based on the faulty recommendation from a military psychiatrist during his
elimination proceedings.

3.  The applicant states that he was a model soldier.  He continues that
civilian psychiatrists recognized his mental illness existed prior to his
military service.  He concludes that he was not responsible for going
absent without leave (AWOL) due to his condition at the time.

4.  The applicant provides a State of North Carolina Proceeding for
Commitment dated, 7 November 1962; a one page undated HA-514-C6 Form from
the Social Security Administration; a two page internet article entitled
"World Fellowship for Schizophrenic and Allied Disorders," dated 7 December
2004; and a page with three news articles that show the applicant was
promoted.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003096972, on 22 June 2004.

2.  The applicant's contentions are new arguments which will be considered
by the Board.  In addition, all the evidence provided is new evidence which
will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant submitted a two page internet article entitled "World
Fellowship for Schizophrenic and Allied Disorder," dated 7 December 2004
that shows a list of warning signs that suggest the onset of schizophrenia.

4.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant enlisted on 16 March 1960.
On 27 November 1961, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being
AWOL for the period from 6 October 1961 through 3 November 1961.



5.  On 17 February 1962, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.
 He was diagnosed with moderate, chronic emotional instability,
ineffectiveness and poor judgment when confronted with minor stress and
poorly controlled hostility and anxiety.  He was found to be mentally
responsible and able to both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right.
 The psychiatrist noted that the applicant was able to participate in his
own defense.  He was considered to be beyond benefit of normal
rehabilitative efforts and separation for unfitness was recommended.

6.  On 21 February 1962, the applicant was convicted by a court-martial of
being AWOL for the period from 11 January 1962 through 2 February 1962.

7.  On 9 March 1962, the applicant acknowledged that he had been
recommended for separation for unfitness.  He waived consultation with
counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and he
did not provide statements on his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he
understood that he might receive an under other than honorable conditions
discharge, that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in
civilian life, lose his veteran benefits and be precluded from future
service in the Armed Forces.

8.  On 7 May 1962, the appropriate authority approved the recommended
elimination and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.  On 14
May 1962, the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge
apparently under the provisions of AR 635-208 due to frequent incidents of
discreditable nature.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 25 days of
creditable active service with 157 days of lost time.

9.  The applicant submitted a State of North Carolina Proceeding for
Commitment dated 7 November 1962.  This document shows he was to be
committed to a state hospital for a period of observation not to exceed 60
days after having been found “Mentally Disordered.”

10.  The applicant submitted a one page undated HA-514-C6 Form from the
Social Security Administration that shows a psychiatric evaluation was done
on 21 November 1984 that revealed had a long history of psychiatric
problems extending back to his childhood.

11.  On 4 February 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

12.  Evidence of record shows that on 24 January 1986, the Social Security
Administration hearing considered medical evidence and found that the
applicant was disabled due to paranoid schizophrenia.

13.  Regulation 635-208 Personnel Separations), 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
and that rehabilitation was impracticable or unlikely to succeed.
Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with
military or civil authorities.  The regulation precluded the setting of
arbitrary standards, such as a certain number of court-martial convictions.
 If examination by a medical officer or psychiatrist indicated the
existence of a mental or physical disability that was the cause of
unfitness, a board of medical officers was convened.  An undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual
circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s
separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was found mentally qualified for separation by a
competent military psychiatrist during his separation proceedings.  He was
separated on 14 May 1962.  The 7 November 1962 State of North Carolina
Proceeding for Commitment that he provided only states he was found to be
mentally disordered.  There is no evidence that states what the disorder
was or weather it rendered him mentally incapable or irresponsible.

2.  The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to show he was
incapable of being able to distinguish right from wrong either while he was
in the Army or shortly thereafter.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ALR_ _  ___REB _  __RR____  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 AR2003096972 dated 22 June 2004.




                                  ____ Mr. Allen L. Raub___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007093                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |31 March 2005                           |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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