RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017155


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 narrative reason for discharge be
changed from Army Regulation 635-208 (Unfitness, Frequent Incidents of a
Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military Authorities) to Army Regulation
635-209 (Unsuitability).

2.  The applicant states he had a 6th-grade education and could not
understand a lot of the orders or instructions he was given.  He states he
should not have been recruited or accepted [into the Army].

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 December 1960.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 November 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 completed 8 years of grammar school.  He enlisted in the
Army on 7 August 1959 at 18 years of age.  He successfully completed basic
combat training and advanced individual training (AIT).  At the completion
of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty 131.00 (Armor
Crewman).  He was advanced to private, E-2 on 7 December 1959.

4.  The applicant received his High School General Equivalency Diploma
(GED) in 1960.

5.  On 30 August 1960, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial, pursuant to his plea, of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9
July 1960 to 29 July 1960 and from 7 August 1960 to 12 August 1960.  He was
sentenced to a reduction to Recruit E-1, confinement at hard labor for six
months, and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for six months.  The
portion of the sentence to confinement was suspended until 2 March 1961.
6.  On 27 October 1960, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.
He was diagnosed as having a passive-aggressive character disorder, severe,
manifested by bitter resentful attitudes toward authority, shirking his
duty and many other acts of omission.  He was also diagnosed as having
alcoholism, moderately severe.  The examining psychiatrist recommended that
the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.
 The psychiatrist stated this type of personality would derive considerable
benefit from a prolonged stay in the stockade and recommended the applicant
be allowed to complete serving his sentence in the stockade before he was
boarded out of the Army.  Further, the psychiatrist stated this condition
was not disabling and there were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient
to warrant discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40a or
Army Regulation 635-40b.  The psychiatrist stated the applicant was
mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to
the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in
board proceedings.

7.  On 3 November 1960, the applicant acknowledged he had been counseled
and advised of the basis for Army Regulation 635-208 separation action in
his case.  He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, waived a
hearing of his case by a board of officers, and declined to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 25 November 1960, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the
applicant be discharged from the service for unfitness under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-208 with issuance of an undesirable discharge.  The
unit commander cited the reasons as the applicant’s incapability of
responding satisfactorily to either military life or rehabilitative
efforts.  He stated the applicant was uncooperative, irresponsible, and had
no motivation toward military life.  During an interview with his unit
commander, the applicant stated he was attempting to get a discharge under
Army Regulation 635-209.  The unit commander stated as a reason why it
would not be considered feasible or appropriate to recommend elimination
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 was the applicant’s
attitudes of complete disregard for authority and his attitudes toward life
in general.

9.  On 7 December 1960, the separation authority directed that the
applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208
with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, the
applicant was discharged on 14 December 1960.  He completed 1 year, 1
month, and 13 days of active military service with 86 days of lost time.

10.  On 12 December 1960, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to
confinement at hard labor for a period of six months was remitted effective
12 December 1960.

11.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The
regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness
with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an
individual’s military record was characterized by one or more of the
following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or
military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized
use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an
established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing
dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

12.  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 were 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208 was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations at that time.  There is no indication of procedural errors
which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant’s service record shows one special court-martial for
being AWOL on two separate occasions for 25 days.

3.  It is acknowledged the applicant was diagnosed as having a passive-
aggressive character disorder and alcoholism.  However, the examining
psychiatrist noted he was mentally responsible and recommended his
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  It appears
that this recommendation, combined with his two instances of AWOL, led his
chain of command to determine that separation under the provisions Army
Regulation 635-208 for unfitness was appropriate.

4.  After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the
applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his
narrative reason for separation from Army Regulation 635-208 (Unfitness,
Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil or Military
Authorities) to Army Regulation 635-209 (Unsuitability)

5.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him
was in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his
request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 December 1960; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 13 December 1963.  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

AR______  LD______  PT______  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.




                                  Allen Raub____________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017155                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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