IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013343 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was 23 years of age and suffered from severe mental illness.  God has healed him with some help from his friends.  He contends he is not the same person he was 43 years ago.  He loves the United States and has been born again.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from his friends.

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.  On 21 July 1966, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed his initial training and was awarded for military occupational specialty (MOS) 03C (Physical Activities Specialist).

3.  The applicant's records show:

	a.  he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 14 October 1966 for operating his privately owned vehicle without a post decal;

	b.  he was apprehended on 12 May 1967 by civilian authorities for indecent exposure; and

	c.  he accepted NJP on 24 May 1967 for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 1 day; failing to go to his appointed place of duty; and possessing an unauthorized official military pass with which he intended to deceive.

4.  On 5 July 1967, the applicant's commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a due to unfitness.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 6 July 1967.

5.  A signed and undated certificate from the Medical Processing Section, Walson Army Hospital, Fort Dix, New Jersey, states the applicant had completed a final type medical examination and his mental and physical condition had been considered in relation to his conduct.  It indicates that he had met medical retention standards.

6.  On 7 July 1967, the applicant's commander recommended him for separation due to unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The commander stated that the applicant had been apprehended by civilian authorities for indecent exposure.  The applicant had admitted the offense as well as other such offenses of indecent exposure.  A criminal investigation report is referenced but no longer available for review.  The commander requested a waiver of rehabilitation.

7.  On 7 August 1967, the applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived representation by counsel; and did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf.




8.  On 16 August 1967, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be discharged due to unfitness and issued DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).  He further directed that the applicant's DD Form 214 was to be annotated in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6a(2)(b) with separation processing number (SPN) 388.

9.  On 23 August 1967, the applicant was discharged under conditions other than honorable.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day of creditable active duty service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  The regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations):

	a.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was 23 years of age and suffered from severe mental illness.



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

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  There is no available evidence showing that he suffered from a severe mental illness at the time of his discharge, or that any such illness was the direct cause of the misconduct that led to his subsequent discharge.

5.  In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied.

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
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013343





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013343



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1