BOARD DATE:	  15 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007736 


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 reconsideration of an earlier request to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* He was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 February 1966
* He appeared before an all white male panel
* He had no legal representation and wasn't  informed he had any right to appeal
* He was simply told he could not adjust to military life and he lacked discipline
* A sergeant testified on his behalf but his testimony was deemed insufficient
* He volunteered to go to Vietnam but his offer was refused
* Other members of his unit received Article 15s but were not dismissed
* He was treated unjustly
* The military gave up on him but he did not give up on himself
*  After he was discharged he got a job, attended college, and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Arts and Education and a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance
* After 23 years, he retired from the Veterans Administration Hospital and began teaching math and history in the Chicago public school system where he taught for 7 years
* He currently works for the State of Alabama with the Department of Youth Services with juvenile delinquents
3.  He further states as evident by his accomplishments, it wasn't his lack of discipline or inability to adjust, but the Army's refusal to give him an opportunity, primarily due to the racial biases that existed during that time that prohibited him from fulfilling his military obligations.

4.  The applicant provides:

* Two Diplomas
* Two Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Performance Awards

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100023058, on 19 April 2011.

2.  He provided a diploma, dated 12 September 1975, for a Bachelor of Arts degree; a diploma, dated 8 January 1984, for a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration; and two DVA Performance Awards, dated 1994 and 1995.  This documentation is new evidence that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (light weapons infantryman).  

4.  In December 1965, he was notified of his pending separation from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unsuitability).  The commander cited:

* the applicant was pending disciplinary actions for destruction of private property
* He did little to improve his knowledge of his job and displayed a lack of interest in anything that was military
* He had no courtesy and he had a care-less attitude requiring constant supervision to get a job done
* he had been transferred within his platoon as well as another unit; therefore, further attempts for rehabilitation would be futile

5.  On 3 December 1965, he was counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He declined counsel and requested a hearing by a board of officers.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He further acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an under other than honorable conditions discharge was issued to him.  He also acknowledged he understood that as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

6.  On 7 December 1965, charges were preferred against him for destroying personal property (two specifications).  

7.  On 7 December 1965, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

8.  On 14 December 1965, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of destroying personal property (two specifications).  

9.  On 29 December 1965, a board of officers convened.  The applicant appeared before the board with counsel.  The board found the applicant was not qualified for further military service as outlined in Army Regulation 635-209 due to apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  The board recommended he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, and that a General Discharge Certificate be furnished.

10.  On 6 January 1966, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability with issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.

11.  On 3 February 1966, he was discharged under honorable conditions 
(a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 8 days of total active service with 45 days of time lost.

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

13.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability 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, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, 
if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he appeared before an all white male panel and that racial biases existed during that time that prohibited him from fulfilling his military obligations.  However, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence which shows he was a victim of racial discrimination.

2.  Although he contends he had no legal representation and he wasn't informed he had any right to appeal, evidence shows on 3 December 1965 he was counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 and he declined counsel.  In addition, he appeared before the Board of Officers with counsel. 
  
3.  His post service accomplishments are commendable.  However, good post service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

4.  His record of service included one summary court-martial conviction and 
45 days of lost time.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

5.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

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

7.  In view 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100023058, dated 19 April 2011.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20120007736





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007736



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1