RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011431


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 undesirable discharge (UD)
be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and academically
challenged because he only completed the 6th grade.  He did not read well
and he had difficulty learning.  He did not understanding what he was
doing.  Training was problematic and he experienced difficulties performing
the duties associated with the military occupational specialty (MOS) he was
awarded.  He desires to return to the military and help to defend the
United States.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 16 May 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated 9
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 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.  On 18 December 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2
years. The available evidence indicates that he failed to meet the academic
requirements for completion of several MOS's prior to completing training
for award of MOS 94B (Cook).

4.  On 3 June 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial
(SPCM) of leaving Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in an absent without leave
(AWOL) status from 29 April to 20 May 1968.  His sentence included a
forfeiture of $41.00 pay for 2 months and confinement at hard labor for 5
months (suspended for 5 months).

5.  The applicant again left his unit in an AWOL status from 25 July to 2
August 1968.  On the date he returned, the suspended portion of the above
sentence to confinement was vacated.  On 28 August 1968, he was convicted
by a summary court-martial of the current period of AWOL.  His sentence
included confinement at hard labor for 1 month.  On 7 October 1968, the
unexecuted portions of his sentences to confinement at hard labor were
suspended.

6.  On 2 December 1968, the applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky
for completion of training in MOS 94B.  He left his unit in an AWOL status
from
5 January to 10 February 1969 until he returned to military control at the
Special Processing Detachment, Fort Leonard Wood.

7.  On 11 February 1969, the applicant's adoptive father requested that his
congressional representative intervene on behalf of his son.  The
applicant's father stated that the applicant's intelligence quotient (IQ)
was 70 which is 5 points below "very low average."  The applicant's father
stated that the applicant was abandoned by his natural parents at age 10
months and he did not have the intelligence to understand the concept of
responsibility.  The applicant had always suffered from severe mental and
emotional disturbance and numerous psychiatrists had failed to help the
applicant or express hope for improvement.  It was perplexing to the
applicant's father that the applicant had been allowed to enlist in the
military.

8.  On 18 February 1969, while in the stockade, Fort Leonard Wood, at age
23, the applicant was reevaluated.  The Chief, Mental Hygiene Consulting
Division (MHCD) diagnosed the applicant to have an inadequate personality
disorder, severe.  The chief, MHCD also stated, on 21 June 1968 the
applicant had been diagnosed to have an antisocial personality disorder,
moderate.  Since June 1968, the applicant had been unproductive.  His IQ
test indicated he was in the borderline intelligence category.  It was the
opinion of the chief, MHCD that the applicant's level of intelligence and,
importantly, his lack of motivation to conform to military standards made
him completely unsuitable for retention.  The applicant's condition was
determined not to require hospitalization, it was not disabling, and his
condition did not require separation processing through medical channels.
He was determined to be mentally responsible, both to distinguish right
from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to
understand and to participate in board proceedings.  The recommendation was
for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212.

9.  On 8 March 1969, the unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent to recommend that a board of officers be convened under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for the purpose of determining
whether he should be discharged for unfitness before the expiration of his
term of service.

10.  On 11 March 1969, legal counsel advised the applicant of the basis for
the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was also advised of
the rights available to him.  The applicant authenticated a statement in
which he acknowledged he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.
He waived further legal representation and a personal appearance before a
board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own
behalf.

11.   On 20 March 1969, a medical physician reviewed the applicant's
medical record, which included the psychiatric evaluation dated 18 February
1969 and congressional correspondence, and responded to the applicant's
congressional representative by stating that the applicant first came to
the attention of the MHCD after he committed several AWOL offenses.  Prior
to this time, he had made two suicide attempts.  He experienced difficulty
with his second marriage and that it was evident he was not able to
function well in civilian or military life.  His IQ was considered
borderline and his problem was believed to be antisocial behavior.  Since
June 1968, he has continually impressed everyone with his inability to
function in the Army.  The physician further stated that the applicant had
been evaluated again on 18 February 1969, while in the Stockade.  Again,
his IQ tested borderline.  It was believed the applicant had a
characterological problem of immature personality which was severe and
precluded him being useful to the service in any capacity.  It was
recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212.  Additionally, the physician stated that there was
no evidence of any major psychiatric condition and it was believed the
problem was one of characterological nature compounded by poor judgment and
low normal intelligence.

12.  On 27 March 1969, the applicant underwent a separation medical
examination and he was determined to be qualified for separation.

13.  On 4 April 1969, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of the above
period of AWOL from 5 January to 11 February 1969.  He was sentenced to a
forfeiture of $45.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard
labor for 6 months.

14.  On 21 April 1969, the commander recommended that the applicant be
separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, due to unfitness
with a UD.  The commander also requested that further counseling and
rehabilitation requirements be waived.

15.  On 22 April 1969, the intermediate commander recommended approval with
a UD.  On the same date, the Judge Advocate General staff reviewed the
request for elimination and found it to be legally sufficient.

16.  On 5 May 1969, competent authority approved the request for a waiver
of further rehabilitation and the recommendation for discharge and directed
that the applicant be issued a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, by reason of unfitness.

17.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 16 May 1969
with a UD.  He had completed 8 months and 1 day of active military service
and he had 271 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in military
confinement.

18.  The available evidence does not show the applicant has ever applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge
within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitation.

19.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were found to be
unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The pertinent regulation further
provided, in pertinent part,
that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD,
unless circumstances warranted a general discharge or a honorable
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was properly separated in accordance with regulations
then in effect and there is no indication of procedural errors which would
have jeopardized his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge is
appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's separation action was not attributed to his educational
deficit.  He was separated with a UD because he continuously left his unit
in an AWOL status when he had the ability to understand right from wrong
and to adhere to the right.

4.  The available evidence indicates the applicant experienced problems
completing his training requirements.  However, he was granted several
opportunities until he was matched with an MOS that he could complete.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 16 May 1969; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
15 May 1972.  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

__reb___  __lf____  __lmd___  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.



                                        Ronald E. Blakely
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011431                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19690519                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-212                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0134                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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