RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008468


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland Venable                |     |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, upgrade of the former service
member's (FSM) undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she would like to have the FSM's
discharge upgraded to a general discharge.  She also states that when the
FSM was charged in a summary and special court-martial in Kentucky, the
service was not aware of what post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was.
She feels that the FSM must have been suffering and just did things not
knowing that it was wrong. All of the FSM's personnel records while in the
service had excellent ratings before he got to Ft. Knox, Kentucky.  The FSM
even had excellent ratings when he served fighting for his country in
Vietnam.  All of the FSM's problems started after his tour of duty in
Vietnam.  She further states that she tried to apply for Department of
Veterans of Administration benefits and was not aware that her husband did
not have an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the FSM's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of
the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and the FSM's death
certificate, in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 June 1968, the date the FSM was discharged from active duty.
 The application submitted in this case is dated 25 May 2006.

2.  The FSM's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army,
on 21 July 1965, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years.  He completed training and
was assigned military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Wheel Vehicle
Mechanic.  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 21 November 1965.

3.  On 1 February 1966, the FSM was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ), for refusal to pay a taxi fare and acting in a
disorderly manner which created a disturbance.  His punishment included
forfeiture of $10.00, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.

4.  On 4 February 1966, the FSM was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for
breaking restriction and failing to report for extra duty.  His punishment
included forfeiture of $20.00, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.

5.  The FSM was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 29 March 1966.
6.  The FSM's records show he served in Vietnam from 7 May 1966 to 6 May
1967.

7.  The FSM was reduced to pay grade E-2 on 26 September 1966.  He was
advanced to pay grade E-3 on 24 October 1966.

8.  On 2 August 1967, the FSM was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for
failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment included an oral
reprimand.

9.  On 6 December 1967, the FSM was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for
leaving his unit on a weekend pass without signing out.  His punishment
included an oral reprimand, restriction for 10 days, and extra duty for 14
days.

10.  On 14 March 1968, the FSM was convicted by a summary court-martial of
failing to obey a lawful regulation, to wit: by having an unregistered .22
caliber revolver stored in his privately owned automobile.  His sentence
was confinement at hard labor for one month and forfeiture of $90.00 pay
per month for one month.

11.  The FSM was reduced to pay grade E-1 on 14 March 1968.

12.  On 3 May 1968, a psychiatric evaluation revealed that the FSM was
mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to
the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in
board proceedings.  The evaluation found no evidence of underlying,
previously unrecognized, medically disqualifying emotional illness.  He was
cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command.

13.  On 7 May 1968, the FSM was convicted by a special court-martial of
leaving his sentinel post before he was regularly relieved.  His sentence
was confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of $90.00 pay
per month for six months.

14.  On 21 May 1968, the FSM was notified by his commander of his intention
to eliminate him from the service by reason of unfitness under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The commander advised the FSM that
he had been a constant source of disciplinary problems within the company.
Although he had been counseled, he continued in his irresponsible ways.

15.  On 22 May 1968, the FSM's commander recommended the FSM be eliminated
from the service for unfitness.  The commander stated that the FSM had
clearly demonstrated that he was unfit for further service in the United
States Army.  The commander also stated that the FSM had served under two
different company commanders.  Each commander tried to rehabilitate the
individual; however, his conduct had been unsatisfactory.  The commander
further stated that as indicated in the report of psychiatric evaluation,
the FSM was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.
The FSM's conduct was a direct result of his unwillingness to conform to
rules and regulations necessary for good order and discipline.

16.  On 24 May 1968, the FSM, through counsel, acknowledged receipt of the
proposed elimination from the service for unfitness.  He elected not to
have his case heard before a board of officers, elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf, and stated he understood that he might be
issued an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, and
the results of issuance of an undesirable discharge.

17.  On 31 May 1968, the appropriate separation authority approved the
FSM's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and
directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

18.  On 7 June 1968, the unexecuted portion of the approved sentence for
forfeiture of $90.00 pay per month for six months and confinement at hard
labor for six months was remitted effective on the discharge date.

19.  The FSM was discharged on 13 June 1968, in pay grade E-1, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.  He was
credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days net service.  The FSM's
character of service was characterized as under conditions other than
honorable.

20.  On an unknown date the FSM was advised that he was being discharged
with an undesirable discharge.  He was also advised that if he felt he
should have received a higher type of discharge, he could request a review
of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within 15 years
after the effective date of his discharge.

21.  There is no evidence of record that the FSM applied for a discharge
upgrade to the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.

22.  The applicant submits a death certificate that shows the FSM died on
26 January 2006.

23.  Army Regulation 635-212 (Enlisted Soldiers), in effect at the time,
set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members
involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or
military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  Action to
separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the
commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a
satisfactory Soldier.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered
appropriate.

24.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, also provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the FSM is not entitled to
an upgrade of the his discharge.  The applicant has submitted neither
probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request and
has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief she now seeks.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however the FSM’s records
show he was punished five times under Article 15, UCMJ, and received one
special court-martial and one summary court-martial.  The FSM's commander
recommended that he be discharged because even though he had been
counseled, he continued in his irresponsible ways.  The FSM's commander
stated that the FSM had served under two different company commanders and
each tried to rehabilitate the FSM; however, his conduct had been
unsatisfactory. The commander further stated that the FSM's conduct was a
direct result of his unwillingness to conform to rules and regulations
necessary for good order and discipline.  Therefore, the FSM’s misconduct
thus diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general
discharge.

3.  The applicant stated that she felt the FSM must have been suffering
from PTSD.  However, the FSM underwent a psychiatric evaluation for the
purpose of his possible separation from the service.  The evaluation
revealed that the FSM was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right
from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings.  The evaluation also found
no evidence of underlying, previously unrecognized, medically disqualifying
emotional illness.

4.  The FSM, through counsel, also acknowledged the proposed action to
eliminate him from the service for unfitness and elected not to have his
case heard before a board of officers and not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.  The applicant further acknowledged that he was being
discharged with an undesirable discharge and he was advised that if he felt
he should receive a higher type of discharge, he could request a review of
his discharge by the ADRB within 15 years after the effective date of his
discharge.  The FSM's records do not show he applied to the ADRB within the
15 years from the date of his discharge for an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that the FSM's
discharge was due to PTSD.  She also has not provided evidence sufficient
to mitigate the character of the FSM's discharge.  In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the character of the discharge is commensurate
with the FSM's overall record of military service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___J____  __WDP__  __RSV__  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.




                                  _    _John T. Meixell______________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008468                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070117                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19680613                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-212 Unfitness                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |A70                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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