RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070002249


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |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 the service dates listed on his
separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to show he served on active
duty from 2 April 1968 through 2 April 1971.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he would like to have his dates of
service corrected because they are wrong.  He claims he enlisted in Glen
Burnie, Maryland, and was discharged at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He
further claims his nickname in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) was
"HELLRAISER."

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

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 applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 2 April 1968, and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, to attend basic combat training (BCT).  His Military Personnel
Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a Record of Induction (DD Form 47), which
confirms he was inducted at the Armed Forces Examination and Entrance
Station (AFEES), Baltimore, Maryland, on 2 April 1968.  His MPRJ contains
no documents, orders or enlistment contracts indicating the applicant
enlisted in the Regular Army subsequent to his induction, or that he served
any additional periods of active duty service.

3.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows, in
Item 38 (Record of Assignments), that he arrived at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, on 2 April 1968.  It further shows he was discharged on 13 June
1968.  His DA Form 20 documents no other active duty service or overseas
service in the RVN.
4.  On 16 May 1968, while in BCT, the applicant underwent a psychiatric
evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with a
passive dependent personality with low tolerance for stress, and he
recommended the applicant be administratively separated under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The examining psychiatrist stated
that the applicant 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.  He further indicated it was his
belief the applicant would not adjust to further military service and
further rehabilitation efforts would probable be non-productive.

5.  On 28 May 1968, the unit commander informed the applicant that he
intended to recommend the applicant for discharge under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability.  He cited his reason
for taking the action was the applicant's passive dependent personality
with low tolerance for stress.  He also advised the applicant that he had
the right to present his case before a board of officers, the right to
submit statements in his own behalf, the right to be represented by
counsel, and the right to waive these rights in writing.  In his
recommendation for discharge, the unit commander stated that the
applicant's performance of duty was unsatisfactory and that the applicant's
superiors and the psychiatrist agreed that further rehabilitative efforts
would be useless.

6.  On 31 May 1968, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for
the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsuitability.  He
confirmed that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with
appointed counsel, or military counsel of his own choice if he was
reasonably available, or civilian counsel at his own expense, and had
declined this opportunity.  He waived his right to consideration of his
case by and personal appearance before a board of officers, he waived his
right to representation by counsel, and he elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 6 June 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant's
discharge for unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a general,
under honorable conditions discharge (GD).  On 13 June 1968, the applicant
was discharged accordingly.

8.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 13 June
1968, indicates in Item 10c (Date Inducted) that he was inducted into the
Army and entered active duty on 2 April 1968.  Item 11d (Effective Date)
shows he was discharged on 13 June 1968.  Item 22a(1) (Net Service This
Period) shows he completed a total of 2 months and 12 days of active duty
service during the period covered by the DD Form 214.  Item 22a(2) (Other
Service) shows he completed no prior service and Item 22b (Total Active
Service) shows his total active duty service also totaled 2 months and 12
days.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item
32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the service dates entered on his DD
Form 214 are in error was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was inducted into the
Army and entered active duty on 2 April 1968, as evidenced by the DD Form
47 on file in his MPRJ and entries on his DA Form 20.  The record further
shows he was processed for early separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability, and was discharged on 13 June 1968,
as evidence by the separation packet on file and an entry in Item 38 of his
DA Form 20.

3.  Further, the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge
confirms he was separated on 13 June 1968 in Item 11d, and the applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 on the date of
his discharge.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the
information contained on the
DD Form 214, to include the separation date entered in Item 11d, was
correct at the time the DD Form 214 was prepared and issued.  Therefore,
absent any evidence of record showing additional active duty service, there
is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested
relief.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LE  ___  __JTM __  __RTD __  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.




                                  _____Lester Echols_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070002249                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/23                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1968/06/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuit                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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