RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	 8 November 2007 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000338 


	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.


x

	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 general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgrade to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was forced to join the Army while he was still a senior in high school.  He was in a bad situation at home and his life was in danger there.  He would just like to get this corrected as soon as possible for his peace of mind.  He adds that he has no hard evidence, just his word as a man.

3.  The applicant submits no documentary evidence, in addition to his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, on 23 February 1973, after having completed 11 years of education.  The applicant successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and attended advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  The evidence shows the applicant was assigned to three units for the purpose of completing advanced individual training but failed to complete any of the three.  He was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS) as a result of his failures.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant was advanced to the rank/pay grade, Private/E-2 on 26 April 1973.  This would be the highest rank/pay grade he would hold while in the Army.

4.  On 13 August 1973, the applicant completed a psychiatric evaluation which covered the period from 20 June through 13 August 1973.  He was diagnosed to have an antisocial personality, chronic, moderate to severe, manifested by suicidal gesture, anxiety and depression, failure to complete administrative school, and the conditions existed prior to his service.  At the completion of this evaluation, he was found to have no mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was found to meet retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501; but, the psychiatrist noted the applicant had been blatantly, verbally, and behaviorally telling everyone he would not make it.  The psychiatrist opined he would continue to be a constant problem to command and recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from service.

5.  The evidence shows the applicant was counseled on 13, 16, 17, 24, and 30 July and 1, 2, and 8 August 1973 on such topics as attitude, motivation, attendance at scheduled training, personal appearance, character, and behavior.

6.  On 17 August 1973, the applicant received non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, at the appointed time, on 16 August 1973.  The imposed punishment was an oral reprimand, extra duty, and restriction to the company area for 14 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

7.  On 23 August 1973, the applicant received non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15, of the UCMJ, for violating a lawful regulation by having a knife with a blade more than two and a half inches in length in his wall locker.  The imposed punishment was a reduction to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, and extra duty, and restriction to the company area for 14 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

8.  On 23 August 1973, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination. He was found medically qualified for separation.

9.  On 29 August 1973, the applicant's commander notified him he was initiating action to eliminate him from the service prior to the expiration of his term of service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13.  The specific reasons were his inaptitude, and character and behavior disorders.

10.  The applicant acknowledged the notification on 29 August 1973.  In his acknowledgement, he waived consideration of his case by and an appearance 
before a board of officers.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant also understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge, under honorable conditions, was 
issued to him.  He also understood that, as a result of issuance of an undesirable discharge, under conditions other than honorable, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

11.  On 29 August 1973, the applicant's commander recommended he be required to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining if he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service.  A request for a waiver of further rehabilitation reassignment was requested since the commander felt further reassignment would not be beneficial to the individual or the military service.

12.  On 4 September 1973, the approval authority approved the applicant's separation from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge

13.  The evidence shows the applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-1, on 7 September 1973, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability – inaptitude and character and behavior disorders.  On the date of his discharge, the applicant had completed 6 months and 15 days total active military service, with no days time lost.

14.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Auto Rifle Bar (M-16), while he served on active duty.  The record contains no documentary evidence of acts of valor or achievement which warrant special recognition.

15.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  AR 635-200 provides the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 establishes procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate, except that an honorable or a general discharge certificate may be issued if the individual has 
been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances in his case.  The type of discharge to be issued will be directed by the convening authority.


17.  AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant's allegation he was forced to join the Army while he was still a senior in high school because his life was in danger was considered; however, he provided no evidence to support this contention.  The applicant stated he had only his word as a man.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant successfully completed basic combat training but did not have the motivation or the aptitude to complete an advanced individual training course which would result in his being awarded an MOS and perhaps an opportunity to continue with his military service.  The evidence shows the applicant was recycled through three units for the purpose of completing advanced individual training but failed to complete any of the three.

4.  In the short span of his service which was just over six months in duration, the applicant received two Article 15s, for violations of the UCMJ, and was counseled on eight occasions about such topics as his attitude, motivation, attendance at scheduled training, personal appearance, character, and behavior.

5.  The overall quality of the applicant’s service was considered.  The record contains no documentary evidence of acts of valor or achievement which would warrant special recognition and an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge.  His service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

6.  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 this requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions, discharge to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__x __  _x ____  ___x__  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.




____x____
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070000338
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19730907
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chapter 13
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.
144.0135
3.
144.4100
4.

5.

6.