RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        09 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009393


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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, that his records be corrected by
upgrading his discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he has been in mental institutions or jail
since he was 11 years old, and feels that at the time he was drafted his
development was still that of an 11 year old kid.

3.  The applicant further states that he tried to be a good Soldier, but
because of his past it was difficult.  Since his discharge he has been a
law biding citizen and has two wonderful kids and nine grand kids.  If
given the chance he would go to Iraq and fight for the country he loves.

4.  The applicant provides letters from his counseling therapist and his
psychiatrist, a January 1971 Mental Hygiene Consultation Service
evaluation, and copies of his induction and discharge medical examinations
in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4
April 1969, for a period of 2 years, at the age of 19.

2.  On 4 September 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 1 September 1969 to 3 September 1969.  His
punishment was restriction, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay.

3.  On 22 December 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being AWOL from 13 November 1969 to 3 February 1970, 7 March
1970 to
5 May 1970, 20 May 1970 to 11 August 1970 and from 28 August 1970 to
21 November 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for
6 months and a forfeiture of pay for 6 months.

4.  On 26 January 1971, a psychiatrist evaluation determined that the
applicant had no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to
warrant disposition through medical channels.  He did not manifest a
psychosis or neurosis, and was mentally responsible, able to distinguish
right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings.

5.  On 30 January 1971, the applicant was notified that his commander was
recommending his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212,
for unfitness.  The reason for his commander’s action was the applicant’s
lack of success in coping with the military, which was caused by his
unwillingness to perform satisfactorily and not by any deficiency of
intelligence or physical ability. His commander noted that he consistently
failed to meet or maintain the required minimal standard of conduct and
performance.  He was advised of his rights and options.

6.  On 30 January 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the
commander’s contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  He waived consideration of his
case by a board of officers, waived legal representation, and declined to
submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood
that if he was issued an under conditions other than honorable discharge he
may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, and would be
ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
state laws.

7.  On 3 February 1971, a medical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

8.  On 3 February 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for
unfitness, and characterization of service of under conditions other than
honorable.

9.  On 8 February 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 4
months, and 15 days of creditable service and 408 days of lost time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were
subject to separation for unfitness.

11.  The applicant submits a 24 September 2004 letter from his psychiatric
who has been treating the applicant since 16 March 1999, for depression and
anxiety. He states that the applicant has anxiety attacks, and his current
medications include an antidepressant and a tranquilizer.
12.  The applicant submits a 30 September 2004, letter from his
Readjustment Counseling Therapist stating that he [the applicant] had no
chance of adapting to military life given his unstable family history, and
to this day remains under the care of a psychiatrist.  He further states
that the applicant’s request for an upgrade is to allow him to continue on-
going medical and psychiatric care, as well as an opportunity for him to
heal the mistakes of his past.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature is not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  The applicant was
19 years old at the time of his first offense.

3.  Even though the applicant submits letters from his therapist and
psychiatrist attesting to his current mental condition, his records
indicate that at the time of his separation from the military he had no
disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition
through medical channels, or which would excuse his behavior.

4.  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 that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___BE __  ___KW __  ___PM__  DENY APPLICATION






BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  ______Barbara Ellis_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009393                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050809                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


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