RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003076


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge with reinstatement of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there is no way possible he had
400 days of lost time due to that fact he was in the hospital for five
months due to an injury sustained while in basic training.  He continues
that he was only absent without leave (AWOL) for approximately 20 days.  He
claims that the "military put in for my discharge while I was
hospitalized."  He concludes that he does not understand why his discharge
was classified as "Unsuitability."

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation
from the Armed Forces of the United States) with a separation date of 10
July 1956 in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 10 July 1956, the date of his separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 2 February 2005.

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.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for
review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records
at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  The applicant’s records
were partially destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient
documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a
fair and impartial review of this case.

4.  The applicant enlisted at the age of 17 with parental consent, on 4
January 1955, for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic
training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military
occupational specialty 111.00 (light weapons infantryman).
5.  The applicant's records contain a partially burned copy of Special
Court-Martial Orders Number 85 which convicted him of AWOL for the periods
of 14 April 1955 through 16 July 1955 and 23 January 1956 through 6
February 1956.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for six
months and forfeiture of $28.00 for six months.

6.  Records contain a partially burned copy of Headquarters, Fort McPherson
Certificate which shows the applicant's lost time.  The following entries
are:

      a.  AWOL from 14 April 1955 through 15 July 1955 [63 days]
      b.  Confinement from 16 July 1955 through 30 November 1955 [138 days]
      c.  AWOL from 23 January 1956 through 5 February 1956 [14 days]
      d.  Confinement from 6 February 1956 through date [serving a six
month sentence – Special Court-Martial Orders Number 85].

7.  Records contain a partially burned document that shows the applicant's
profile.  This form shows a numeral "4" under the "S" [Psychiatric) and
lists the applicant's condition as "nervousness" which is considered
permanent.

8.  Records contain a Standard Form 507 (Clinical Record), dated 15
September 1955, which shows the applicant was admitted to the hospital
[Brooke Army Hospital, Fort McPherson, Georgia] on 20 August 1955, for a
diagnosis of Psychiatric Observation.  This form also shows that he
complained about headaches and spells resulting from a car accident in
which he was involved while AWOL around July 1955.

9.  Records contain a Report of Clinical Psychological Evaluation from the
Brooke Army Hospital, Department of Neuropsychiatry which state the overall
impression of the applicant is that he is "quite emotionally immature,
being fairly unstable and unable to effectively develop defense-systems or
adjustments in connection with problems, nurturance-demands, hostility, and
guilt.  Schizoid implications, probably of the variety of a mild thinking-
disorder, are also evident."

10.  Records contain a Standard Form 507 (Clinical Record), dated 14
October 1955, wherein a medical corps officer serving in the capacity of
Chief, Psychiatric Consultation Services, provided a consultation report.
The report stated the applicant evidently presented a personality disorder
prior to his head injury.  The medical officer continued that the applicant
should be discharged based on the diagnosis of Encephalopathy [any of
various diseases of the brain], post traumatic and considered not in the
line of duty since the accident occurred while
he was AWOL.  The medical corps officer concluded the applicant knows the
difference of right from wrong and believes that court-martial will not be
of any value as he is not capable of rehabilitation for any useful service
in the Army.

11.  Records contain a letter of notification, which advised the applicant,
that he is required to appear before a board of officers under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  This letter also informed him that
he is being determined to whether or not be discharged prior to the
expiration of his term of service for reasons of character or behavior
disorders.  This letter further indicated that the applicant was under
court-martial charges and was currently serving a sentence in the stockade.

12.  Records contain a partially burned copy of DA Form 37 (Report of
Proceedings.…), which shows the board of officers found the applicant
unsuitable for further military service because of character and behavior
disorders and recommended that he be discharged from the service because of
unsuitability.  The board of officers also recommended the applicant be
furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  The action officer having General Court-Martial jurisdiction approved
the recommendation for discharge on 22 June 1956 and directed the applicant
be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

14.  The applicant was separated on 10 July 1956, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-209, by reason of unsuitability and furnished a General
Discharge Certificate.  He had served 5 months and 5 days of active Federal
service with 400 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

15.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy
and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for
unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for
unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate
in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the
individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant
discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and
behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and
inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism,
and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when
psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a
psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was
considered appropriate.  Otherwise, return to duty or referral for
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was directed.

17.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile
serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of
an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel
officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is
capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four
numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of
functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or
stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-
eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors
indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of
medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military
assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual
has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain
restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically
capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive
assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  Numerical
designator "4" indicates that an individual has one or more medical
conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of
military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator "4"
does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical
disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to
an honorable discharge so he may receive VA benefits.


2.  Evidence shows the applicant’s separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of
procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The discharge
proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate
with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant also contends that he did not have 400 days of lost time
because he was in the hospital for five months due to an injury sustained
while in basic training.

4.  Contrary to the applicant's contentions, evidence clearly shows he was
AWOL and confined on numerous occasions.  Furthermore, while serving six
month sentence, the applicant was admitted to the hospital for affects of
an injury he sustained while on AWOL status.

5.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, these factors do
not provide a sufficient basis for upgrade of his discharge.  Also, the
ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the
purpose of making the applicant eligible for veteran or other benefits.

6.  After a review of the applicant’s record of service, it is evident that
his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to
an honorable discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 July 1956; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 9 July 1959.  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

__jm____  __wdp___  __lo ____  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.




                                  _____William D. Powers ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003076                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1956/07/10                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-209                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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