IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018499 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was going through a divorce at the time
* he was paying for a child who wasn't his
* he may have done things he shouldn't have
* it was so long ago that he can't even remember what he did
* he was hospitalized for a week and then he was discharged

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored letter, dated 21 July 2011
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) effective 15 January 1964
* Standard Form 180 (Request for Military Records)
* Reserve Letter Orders Number 9-24
* Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of a DA Form 24 (Service Record)

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 reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years on 12 December 1961 with 10 years, 3 months, and 1 day of prior active service.  He was promoted through the ranks from private (E-1) to sergeant first class (E-7).

3.  On 11 October 1963, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) notified him of his intent to reduce him to staff sergeant (E-6) due to inefficiency.  The CO cited the applicant's letters of indebtedness and dishonored checks as a basis for the intended reduction.  The applicant was advised that he had 3 days to reply by endorsement, citing matters of extenuation or mitigation.

4.  The applicant submitted the following matters of extenuation and mitigation:

	a.  His noncommissioned officers' mess account was for a $10.00 "chit book." He was in the field when the bill was sent to him.  Upon his return, he forgot about it and the next correspondence was sent to his unit.  He paid the bill when he was notified by his sergeant major.

	b.  His Lawson's Jewelry account was for two watches he purchased for Christmas presents.  Shortly afterward, he had to help with some family debts and he let the account ride without a letter of explanation.  He recently paid off the account.

	c.  The dishonored checks he wrote on the Planters Bank and Trust Company had been redeemed.  He had a $100.00 allotment per month to the bank which had been in effect as of June 1961.  He wrote the checks in good faith during the month of August as he believed he had enough money left in his account to more than cover the small amounts.  He had a $100.00 deposit by allotment due to the bank on or about the second day of the month.  He wrote checks on the third day and the seventh day of the month based on his allotment.

	d.  He never had any difficulty with his bank, he wrote the checks with the understanding that his balance was adequate to cover the checks.  The only way he could account for a lesser account balance would be if his former wife passed a check through the bank with a forged signature.

	e.  He opened a Sebena World Airlines account in 1957 when he became a co-signer for a private first class who was a member of his squad.  A death of the PFC's relative occurred and he was granted emergency leave.  It was necessary to travel on a civilian aircraft to be assured of a quick trip.  He was asked by his platoon sergeant to co-sign for the PFC.  He gave the creditors the PFC's address and he did not hear from them until September 1963.  He did not believe the debt was valid after all the time that had lapsed nor did he believe that any effort was made in collecting from the PFC.  He was seeking legal advice on the matter as he believed the statute of limitations had passed and 4 years had passed without notification.

5.  In a third endorsement, dated 25 October 1963, the applicant's company commander recommended additional action to reduce the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade.  He stated the following:

	a.  The endorsement written by the applicant in extenuation and mitigation was an obvious attempt to "white wash" the basic fact that he was either incapable or just not interested in straightening out his financial problems.

	b.  None of the applicant's bad debts or checks were settled on his own accord, but to the contrary were only corrected after repeated urging when they were brought to the attention of this unit.

	c.  The applicant stated he anticipated no further financial difficulties; however, a check for $80.00 was dishonored due to insufficient funds and returned to the bank.  The check was written on 9 October 1963 after he had stressed the fact that the applicant was to write no more checks until such time as he was certain he had money to cover the checks.

	d.  The unit received a letter from Speigel on 24 October 1963 in reference to a bad debt for the applicant in the amount of $119.64.

	e.  The unit received a telephone call from the clinic pharmacy on 24 October 1963 in reference to a $5.00 bad check that was passed on 17 September 1963.

	f.  He believed an individual displaying these weaknesses was a security risk and that his clearance should be revoked.

6.  On 26 October 1963, the applicant was notified that after review of the facts presented by him in his endorsement and his company commander's third endorsement, his conduct in administering his personal affairs had not been consistent with the high standards normally expected of a noncommissioned officer, particularly one of his age and experience.  He was advised that he was reduced in rank from sergeant first class (E-7) to sergeant first class (E-6) effective immediately.

7.  The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at Womack Army Medical Center.  After the initial examination he was admitted to the psychiatric ward for observation for a period of several weeks.  The psychiatrist stated the applicant had lost all motivation for completing his Army service and was in a state of depression.  He believed that every reasonable means had been utilized in an attempt to rehabilitate the applicant and he was considered to be of no further value to the military service.  The psychiatrist recommended his separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability).

8.  The applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 3 January 1964 and he waived his right to consult with counsel, to request a hearing by a board of officers, and to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 8 January 1964.  On 15 January 1964, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 due to unsuitability – apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively.  He completed 12 years and 7 days of total active service and he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included:

* inaptitude
* character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress
* apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively
* enuresis
* chronic alcoholism
* class III homosexuality (evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts)

11.  An evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted and his supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  His records show he was reduced in pay grade from E-7 to E-6.  He had a habit of writing bad checks and not paying his creditors.  He was notified that he was being recommended for discharge for unsuitability and he declined to have his case considered before a board of officers, to consult with counsel, and to submit a statement in his own behalf.

3.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, 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.  The applicant's service was not fully honorable.

4.  In view of the forgoing, his 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 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)                                         AR20110018499



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018499



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1