RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 NOVEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002356


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and did not
understand the seriousness of his actions.  Over 35 years since his
discharge he has raised a family and been an asset to society.  He wishes
to be buried as an honorable Veteran.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 October 1966, for a
period
of 3 years, and reenlisted on 26 September 1967, for a period of 4 years.
At the time of his reenlistment he was 18 years of age.  He served in
Germany from August 1967 to October 1968.

2.  On 7 June 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to
go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment
was restriction, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay.

3.  Documents show the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on
14 October 1969 to 27 October 1969, and from 16 December 1969 to 11 January
1970.

4.  On 25 June 1969, a line of duty investigation was initiated to
investigate the facts surrounding the shooting accident of the applicant on
17 June 1969.  The investigation determined that the shooting incident was
not in the line of duty, but was due to the applicant’s own misconduct.
The applicant accidentally shot himself as he was playing around with a .45
caliber pistol when it discharged hitting him in the right thigh and left
toe.

5.  On 12 February 1970, the applicant was referred by his commander for a
psychiatric evaluation.  This request was made because the applicant was
very anxious and pressured, depressed with homicidal and suicidal
ideations, impulsive (reenlisted to get out of Germany, and went AWOL to
avoid separation from his parents at Christmas), passive-dependent,
spiteful, uses poor judgment, and externalizes.

6.  The psychiatric examination indicated that the applicant had
"Inadequate personality" with paranoid features, and "Adjustment reaction
of adolescence", severe, with anxiety, suicidal and homicidal ideation,
extremely poor judgment, externalization of responsibility, spite,
inability to comply, impulsive, inadaptability, ineptness, accident
proneness, and ineffectual response to any and all demands.  His current
condition was not subject to rehabilitation, but likely to decompensate to
become dangerous to self and others, and not suitable for service.  Highly
recommend separation by administrative means.

7.  On 13 February 1970, the psychiatrist felt that the applicant would not
adjust to further military service and rehabilitative efforts.  The
applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong
and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.  He had no disqualifying mental or
physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical
channels.

8.  On 18 February 1970, the applicant was advised by his commander that he
was initiating action to propose board action under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212.  He advised the applicant of his rights.

9.  On 19 February 1970, the applicant, after consulting with legal
counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived
appearance before a board of officers, waived representation by counsel,
and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 24 February 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s discharge with the issuance of an under honorable conditions
(general) discharge.

11.  On 3 March 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability, under honorable conditions.
His DD Form 214 indicates he had 2 years, 3 months and 28 days of
creditable service and he had 39 days of lost time.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and
procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for
unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the
discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and
behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical
authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or
general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority
based upon the individual's entire record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time with no indication of procedural errors
which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and did not understand the
significance of his actions is insufficient justification for upgrading his
discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MP ___  ___RR __  __EF ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  ____Margaret Patterson______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002356                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061109                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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