RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103159


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Semma E. Salter               |     |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 that his general discharge (GD)
under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has lived with his GD for 36
years and it has been severe, unjust punishment for his mistakes.  He also
states that he was suffering from both an attention deficit disorder and a
panic disorder at the time of separation.  He believes his discharge should
be upgraded; he served his country; he is a patriot and he has no criminal
record.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request:

      a.  A copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States
Report of Transfer or Discharge), issued on 8 June 1965.


      b.  Special Orders Number 158, dated 7 June 1965, from Headquarters,
US Army Personnel Center, Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, New York.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred
8 June 1965.  The application submitted in this case is dated 14 January
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.  On 16 July 1963, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3
years.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Clerk).  On 3 January 1964, he was
assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for completion of the basic airborne
course.  The available evidence does not show that he ever completed this
training.

4.  On 2 March 1964, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against him for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Benning from 15 February to 1 March
1964.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $10.00 pay for 1 month and
14 days of extra duty.
5.  On 24 April 1964, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-
martial (SCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) while enroute to Germany
from
14 March to 15 April 1964.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-
2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor 1 month, and a forfeiture of
$25.00 pay for 1 month.

6.  On 21 May 1964, the applicant was convicted by a SCM of being AWOL from
29 April to 8 May 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for
30 days and a forfeiture of $28.00 pay for 1 month.

7.  On 19 August 1964, the applicant was convicted by a SCM of being AWOL
from 29-30 June 1964 and 2-9 July 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at
hard labor for 1 month and a forfeiture of $28.00 pay for 1 month.

8.  On 9 September 1964, he was assigned to Germany.  On 19 September 1964,
he was advanced to pay grade E-2 and on 20 November 1964, he was advanced
to pay grade E-3.

9.  On 14 February 1965, while assigned to Germany, the applicant tossed a
tear gas grenade into the Hagenbacher Hof, Hagenbach, Germany.  The action
resulted in panic in a near capacity crowd.

10.  On 6 April 1965, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the
applicant.  The bases cited for the bar were the above incidents.  On 19
May 1965, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

11.  On 20 April 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of willfully and wrongfully damaging private property.  He was
sentenced to
4 months confinement at hard labor, and reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay
grade E-1

12.  On 15 April and 4 May 1965, the applicant underwent a psychiatric
evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed as having
an immaturity reaction, passive-aggressive type.  He was determined to be
oriented, rational and coherent.  He showed no evidence of abnormal
thinking or behavior suggesting psychosis.  The applicant expressed no
motivation to remain in the military.  The recommendation was that no
further attempt at rehabilitation of the applicant be made.  He would not
develop to the extent that he would be become a satisfactory soldier.  The
examiner's opinion was that the applicant was a candidate for separation
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

13.  Between January 1964 and May 1965, both the applicant's conduct and
efficiency were rated unsatisfactory.
14.  The commander recommended that a board of officers be convened under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 to determine whether the
applicant should be discharged for unsuitability before the expiration of
his term of service. On 10 May 1965, the applicant authenticated a
statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged he understood the
basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available
to him.  He stated that he had been counseled and did not desire further
legal representation.  He also waived a consideration of his case before a
board of officers.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

15.  On 17 May 1965, competent authority approved the recommendation and
directed the issuance of a GD.

16.  On 8 June 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-209, with a GD, in pay grade E-1.  He had completed 1
year,
5 months and 9 days of net service this period.  He also had 167 days of
lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.

17.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-
year statute of limitations.

18.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect, at the time set forth the basic
policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.
Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the
separation of individuals determined to be unsuitable for further service
by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  Under this regulation and
paragraph the appropriate authority could approve an honorable or a general
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

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

3.  The available evidence clearly shows the applicant had a character and
behavior disorder, but that it posed no problem insofar as the separation
process. At the time he was separated, a GD or an honorable was
appropriate; the applicant's characterization of service was based clearly
on his performance and conduct.  Both were unsatisfactory from the time
that he enlisted until he was separated.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 8 June 1965; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 7 June 1968.  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

__fe____  __pms___  __ses___  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.


                                  Fred Eichorn
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103159                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041221                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19650608                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-209                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A93.33                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.9333                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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