RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010439


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted S. Kanamine               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 general discharge under honorable
conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states that since his discharge he has been rated as
       100 percent service-connected for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar
type.  This medical problem existed while he was in the Army and caused him
to receive an under honorable conditions discharge rather than an honorable
discharge.  Given the fact the Department of Veterans Affairs has
recognized that he had and has no control over this aspect of his life, he
would like his discharge upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides an addendum to his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 4 November 1976.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 11 July 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.  The applicant was born on 3 December 1958.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 20 January 1976.  He completed basic training and advanced
individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V
(Storage Supplyman).

4.  On 24 and 29 September 1976, the applicant received a mental hygiene
evaluation.  He was found to be suffering from situational depression, an
emotional state that appeared to be a function of his separation from his
wife and mother.  The evaluation noted the applicant entered the military
at age 17 with his mother’s approval.  Since that time, he had become the
sole support of his mother.  The applicant was married during leave
following basic training.  His wife had since received a discharge from the
Army and the applicant claimed he did not know how his wife was surviving.
It was the evaluator’s opinion that the applicant lacked the maturity to
function effectively in a situation that required his separation from his
family as demonstrated in his poor work performance.  He was
psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by
his command, to include administrative discharge through the expeditious
discharge program (EDP).

5.  On 19 October 1976, the commander initiated separation action on the
applicant under the provisions of the EDP.

6.  On 19 October 1976, the applicant acknowledged notification of the
action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He waived the
opportunity to submit a statement on his behalf.  He acknowledged that he
understood that if he was furnished a general discharge under honorable
conditions he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life, and he acknowledged that he was provide the opportunity to consult
with a Judge Advocate.

7.  On 21 October 1976, the applicant’s commander formally recommended he
be discharged, with a general discharge, under the EDP.  He noted the
applicant had no Article 15s, no court-martials, and had not been
counseled.  The reason he cited for his recommendation was the applicant’s
failure to adapt emotionally to the military and his constantly exhibiting
anxiety and confusion which were indicative of his potential for
experiencing serious emotional and disciplinary problems.

8.  On 28 October 1976, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the applicant be given a general discharge
under honorable conditions.

9.  On 4 November 1976, the applicant was discharged with a general
discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.  He had completed 9
months and 15 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 at
the time provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less
than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and
who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of
motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or
emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be
discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of
substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became
necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she
voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Members separated under
the EDP could be awarded a characterization of service of honorable or
under honorable conditions as appropriate (paragraph 1-13).

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 1-13 at the time, stated an
honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military
behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current
enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service,
grade, and general aptitude.  Where a member served faithfully and
performed to the best of his ability and there was no derogatory
information in his military record, he should be furnished an honorable
discharge certificate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army less than two months after
he turned age 17.  It appears he married right after completing basic
training, while still 17 years of age, and soon became the sole support of
his mother and wife.

2.  On 21 October 1976, the applicant’s commander formally recommended he
be discharged, with a general discharge, under the EDP.  The commander
noted the applicant had no Article 15s, no court-martials, and had not been
counseled.  The reason he cited for his recommendation was the applicant’s
failure to adapt emotionally to the military and his constantly exhibiting
anxiety and confusion which were indicative of his potential for
experiencing serious emotional and disciplinary problems.

3.  The applicant was discharged on 4 November 1976 with a general under
honorable conditions discharge under the EDP, while he was still 17 years
of age.

4.  It is recognized that the regulation provided for the applicant to
receive either a general under honorable conditions discharge or a fully
honorable discharge.

5.  However, the regulation also stated that an honorable discharge
certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient
performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due
consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general
aptitude.  Where a member served
faithfully and performed to the best of his ability and there was no
derogatory information in his military record, he should be furnished an
honorable discharge certificate.

6.  The applicant had no record of derogatory information in his military
record.  The lack of counseling given to him indicates he was performing to
the best of his ability, but his ability was hampered by his inability to
function in a situation that required his separation from his family.

7.  There is no evidence to show the applicant suffered from any mental
disorder while he was on active duty.  However, based upon his military
record it appears he met the eligibility criteria for a fully honorable
characterization of service.  It would be equitable at this time to upgrade
his discharge to fully honorable.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 November 1976; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on     3 November 1979.  The applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, the available evidence
shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

__tsk___  __lcb___  __lmd___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected by:

     a.  showing he was separated from the service with an Honorable
Discharge Certificate on 4 November 1976;

     b.  issuing to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 4
November 1976, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held
by him; and
     c.  issuing to him a new DD Form 214 reflecting the above corrections.




                                  __Ted S. Kanamine_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060010439                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070227                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19761104                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, para 5-37                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A04.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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