IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013608 


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 upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was very immature and psychologically damaged when he enlisted in the Army.  He was just 18 years of age and out of his comfort zone when he was sent overseas and stationed at Fort Kobbe and Fort Davis, Panama.  There was too much temptation for him, which led to his disciplinary problems and resulted in him being discharged.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence 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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 25 August 1969 for a period of 4 years.  At the time, he was 17 years, 9 months, and 17 days of age.

	a.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Radio Field Mechanic).

	b.  He completed basic airborne training and he was advanced to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 25 March 1970.

3.  A DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows the applicant was honorably discharged on 28 April 1970 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

	a.  He completed 8 months and 4 days of total active service during this period of service.

	b.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows the National Defense Service Medal and Parachutist Badge.

4.  On 29 April 1970, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for a period of 4 years and he was assigned overseas to serve in Panama.

5.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

	a.  on 20 July 1970 for willfully disobeying a lawful command received from his superior commissioned officer on 14 July 1970;

	b.  14 September 1970 for being absent from his unit on 14 September 1970;

	c.  28 September 1970 for being absent from his place of duty on
17 September 1970;

	d.  12 April 1971 for willfully disobeying a lawful command received from a superior commissioned officer on 4 and 8 April 1971; and

	e.  16 April 1971 for behaving with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 13 April 1971.


6.  On 19 April 1971, the applicant's commander counseled the applicant based on his admission to the use of drugs.  The applicant stated that he could solve his problem.  He also informed his commander that he intended to marry a foreign national.

7.  On 22 April 1971, the applicant's commander informed the applicant that he was being transferred within the company for the purpose of rehabilitation.

8.  On 21 June 1971, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness.  The applicant was also advised of his rights.

9.  A Medical Statement, dated 23 June 1971, shows the applicant was referred to the battalion surgeon for medical evaluation for the purpose of elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 because of his repeated misbehavior.  The battalion surgeon's diagnoses of the applicant was Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and drug dependence to Amphetamines.

	a.  He stated there were no disqualifying mental defects to warrant disposition of the applicant through medical channels.

	b.  He recommended elimination of the applicant from the Service for reasons of unfitness in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212.

10.  On 2 July 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and representation by counsel.  He also indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf.  The applicant acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an undesirable discharge was issued to him.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

11.  The immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant's discharge for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

12.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.


13.  On 1 September 1971 he was discharged accordingly.  He completed
1 year, 4 months, and 2 days of net service this period for a total of 2 years and 4 days of active service.

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

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  This Army regulation provides that when separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 undesirable discharge should be upgraded to a general discharge because he was psychologically immature and there was too much temptation for him while serving overseas, which led to his disciplinary problems.

2.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.

	a.  Considering the applicant satisfactorily completed training, he was awarded MOS 31B, and he served honorably during his initial period of active service, his contention that he was immature is not supported by the evidence of record.  There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.  In addition, there is no evidence that indicates there was "too much temptation" in Panama that led to his disciplinary problems.

	b.  A medical evaluation revealed no evidence of any mental condition which would warrant consideration of the applicant for treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition via medical channels.

	c.  Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's contentions.


3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  He was appropriately issued an undesirable discharge and he has not provided any evidence sufficient to support upgrading his discharge.

4.  The applicant's military service records show the applicant received NJP on five separate occasions during the period of service under review and he failed to complete his 4-year active duty obligation.  Thus, the applicant's overall quality of service was not satisfactory and he is not entitled to a general discharge.

5.  In view of all of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110013608



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013608



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1