RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010136


      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. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 was young and foolish and regrets the
mistake of using illegal substances.  He is currently drug free, and would
like his mistake in judgment corrected.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 18
January 1968, for a period of 2 years.  The applicant was 19 years old at
the time of his enlistment.

2.  On 7 February 1968, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to
go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment was extra duty,
restriction and a forfeiture of pay.

3.  On 18 May 1968, a CID (Criminal Investigation Division) Report of
Investigation disclosed that the applicant had committed the offenses of
wrongful possession of marihuana and violation of a lawful General
Regulation by possessing prohibited drugs.

4.  On 9 August 1968, a psychiatric evaluation cleared the applicant for
separation.  The evaluation diagnosed the applicant with an immature
personality, manifested by poor judgment, resentment of authority and
impulsive maladaptive behavior.  The evaluation recommended that the
applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212,
noting that he believed that the Soldier could not be rehabilitated to the
extent that he could be an effective Soldier.

5.  On 14 August 1968, while in confinement, the applicant acknowledged
that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for his commander’s 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
undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable that 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.

6.  On 15 August 1968, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the
applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212,
unfitness.  Elimination action was recommended because the applicant was
very immature and appeared to be unable to exercise proper control over
himself and yielded easily to improper action without thought of
consequences.  He had no ideas of his own on how to resolve his problems,
but would not listen or try to benefit from any advice from others.  All
attempts to rehabilitate him had failed.  He seemed determined to get out
of the service at all cost without thought to later consequences.

7.  The appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and directed the issuance
of an undesirable discharge.

8.  On 21 August 1968, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a, for unfitness.  His DD Form 214
(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
indicates he had
2 months and 2 days of creditable service, and 139 days of lost time.

9.  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.

10.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 19 July 1973, the ADRB reviewed and denied the
applicant’s request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant’s
discharge was proper and equitable.

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 foolish is not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  The applicant was
20 years old at the time of his first offense, and there is no evidence
that he had a problem understanding the events surrounding his discharge.

3.  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

__SP ___  __RD ___  __JM  ___  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.





                                  _____ Shirley Powell_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010136                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050913                                |
|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]