RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007598


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Soniak                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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 be
changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was sworn in before his
medical examination was completed and that this examination was not
completed until his third week in basic training.  He contends that they
were unable to draw blood because his arms were so swollen from using
drugs.  He states that he was addicted to drugs and suffering with a mental
disorder and that the Army was aware of this.  He also states that he was
asked to volunteer in a line up, that he was picked out of the line up, and
then he was sent to the stockade for nine months.  He claims that while in
the stockade he was offered a discharge for the good of the service and
that he was forced to take it just to get out of there.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 June 1970.  The application submitted in this case is dated
23 May 2006.

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 15 October 1968, the applicant underwent an enlistment physical
examination and was found qualified for enlistment with a physical profile
of 111111.  He reported that he was “In good condition” in item 17
(Statement of Examinee’s Present Health in Own Words) on his Standard Form
89 (Report of Medical History), dated 15 October 1968.

4.  The applicant enlisted on 16 October 1968 for a period of 2 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training in military occupational specialty 76Y (unit supply specialist).

5.  On 10 June 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and extra duty.

6.  On 2 February 1970, the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) and
returned to military control on 7 February 1970.  On 20 February 1970,
charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period and two
specifications of robbery.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

7.  On 7 May 1970, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a
request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  This request states, in pertinent
part, that "I have not been subjected to coercion with respect to this
request for discharge."  He indicated in his request that he understood
that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he might be deprived
of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all
benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and that he might be
deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial
prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected
not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 16 June 1970, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile
of 111111.

9.  On 22 June 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 26 June 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 1 year, 2 months,
and 21 days of total active service with 7 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with a mental condition or drug dependence prior to his discharge.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that
a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized
punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the
service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.
13.  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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
 Paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or
continue, disability processing when action has been started under any
regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of
under other than honorable conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that
he was sworn in before his medical examination was completed.  Medical
evidence of record shows that he underwent an enlistment physical
examination on
15 October 1968 and was found qualified for enlistment.  He enlisted on
16 October 1968.

2.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that
he was forced to take the chapter 10 discharge just to get out of the
stockade.  His request for voluntary discharge states, in pertinent part,
that "I have not been subjected to coercion with respect to this request
for discharge."

3.  Although the applicant contends that he was addicted to drugs and
suffering with a mental disorder prior to his enlistment, medical evidence
of record shows he was found qualified for enlistment with a physical
profile of 111111 on
15 October 1968.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was
ever medically unfit to perform his duties or that he had any type of
medical or mental condition.  In addition, since he separated under a
regulatory provision that authorized a characterization of discharge of
under other than honorable conditions (i.e. undesirable discharge), it does
not appear he was eligible for physical disability processing.  Therefore,
there is no basis for a medical discharge.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 26 June 1970; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 25
June 1973.  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

JR_____  ___RS___  ___DT___  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.




                                  ___Jeffrey Redmann____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007598                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061116                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19700626                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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