RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            13 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040011211


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |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 that his general discharge for unfitness be
changed to a medical discharge by reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was in error
because the Army misdiagnosed his illness.  He goes on to state that he
thought he was getting a medical discharge at the time and that he entered
the Army in good physical and mental condition and became sick in the Army.
 He also states that the diagnosis that he was a moron is unfounded because
he earned expert weapons qualifications, several different driver licenses
and was classified as a Category IV enlistee.  Inasmuch as the mental
categories only go to Category V, and he made high test scores when he
entered the service, it is apparent that a misdiagnosis was made at the
time.  He continues by stating that he is currently being treated for
severe and chronic service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

3.  The applicant provides copies of documents from his records related to
his enlistment, weapons and vehicle qualifications, medical diagnoses and a
statement from his commander at the time.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 December 1964.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 11 December 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 limitation 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 was inducted in Louisville, Kentucky, on 22 August 1963
and was classified as Category IV in the Armed Forces Qualification Test
Mental Group, which was the lowest mental category accepted for induction
or enlistment.

4.  He was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, to undergo his basic combat
training (BCT) and he qualified as a Marksman with the M1 Rifle, the lowest
qualification awarded.

5.  He successfully completed his BCT and was transferred to Fort Hood,
Texas, on 27 October 1963, to undergo his advanced individual training as
an infantry indirect fire crewman.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2
on 22 December 1963.

6.  On 9 January 1964, he was issued a military drivers license for
multiple vehicles ranging from a ¼ ton to 2 1/2 ton vehicles.  He qualified
as a Marksman with the .45 caliber pistol on 12 March 1964 and was advanced
to the pay grade of E-3 on 23 April 1964.

7.  On 13 August 1964, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being
absent without leave from 10 June 1964 until 12 June 1964 and from 29 June
1964 until 8 July 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for
6 months, reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.
However, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as
pertains to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, reduction to the pay
grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

8.  On 5 September 1964, the convening authority suspended the unexecuted
portion of his sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for a
period of 3 months and 7 days, unless sooner vacated.

9.  On 27 October 1964, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar
him from reenlistment for failure to meet minimum standards of conduct and
efficiency.  He cited the applicant’s low mental attitude, failure to
maintain acceptable standards of appearance, failure to maintain acceptable
relations with his fellow Soldiers and being very slow to comprehend orders
and instructions as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant
acknowledged the commander’s recommendation and elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to
reenlistment on
17 November 1964.

10.  Meanwhile, the applicant’s commander also submitted a recommendation
to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability due to inaptitude.  He cited the
applicant’s recurrent violations of disciplinary rules, constant
maintenance of a sloppy appearance, a general attitude of inability to
adjust to military life, unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings, and
failure to respond to the efforts of the Chaplain’s office and medical and
psychiatric facilities as the basis for his recommendation.

11.  The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was deemed to
have a moderate impairment of intelligence.  The examining psychiatrist
deemed him to be mentally competent both to distinguish right from wrong
and to adhere to the right.  He recommended that the applicant be
expeditiously discharged for inaptitude and opined that there was no mental
defect warranting separation through medical channels.

12.  The applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of his rights and
waived all of his rights.  He also declined the opportunity to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

13.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
25 November 1964 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

14.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on
14 December 1964, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for
unsuitability due to inaptitude.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 12 days
of total active service and had 72 days of lost time due to AWOL and
confinement.

15.  At the time of his discharge he was also advised of the procedures for
applying to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of his
discharge.  However, there is no evidence to show that he ever applied to
that board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.
Paragraph 3 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the
separation of personnel where there was evidence of inaptitude, character
and behavior disorders, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, or homosexuality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, they are not
supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the
evidence of record.  His mental status at the time was diagnosed by a
psychiatrist at the time and it was determined that there were no
disqualifying medical defects that warranted separation through medical
channels.

4.  While the applicant may now be receiving treatment from the DVA, that
in itself is not a basis to determine that he should have been separated
through medical channels in 1964.  That agency operates on their own
guidelines and this Board is not bound by determinations made by that
agency just as they are not bound by any determinations made by the
Department.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 December 1964; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 13 December 1967.  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

___SP __  ___RD __  ___JM __  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.




            _____Shirley Powell_________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011211                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1964/12/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-209 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |unsuit                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |730/unsuit                              |
|1.144.7800              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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