IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  4 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011144 


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 under honorable conditions or honorable discharge.

2.  He states:

	a.  he believes the discharge issued to him was unjust.

	b.  he was teased and picked on due to a sleep disorder and skin condition.

	c.  he became embarrassed and depressed while on active duty which caused him to get into trouble.

	d.  he was a good Soldier when he first entered the service; however, once the depression set in, he made some bad decisions.

	e.  he feels that his service was honorable and prays the Board recommends an honorable discharge.

3.  He provides:

* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* Letter, dated 2 May 2011, from the Army Review Boards Agency
* Self-authored statement
* Letter, dated 23 March 2012, from the National Personnel Records Center with documents from his military personnel record
* Medical documents

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 underwent a pre-induction medical examination and his Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicated he had a vision problem.  This medical document didn't indicate a skin condition.  He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 14 July 1964.  He served in Germany from 7 December 1964 to 19 June 1966.

3.  His disciplinary history includes his convictions by a summary and special court-martial of wrongfully using reproachful words towards a member of the U.S. Army and failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.

4.  On an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Unfitness, Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature).  The applicant declined counsel and a hearing by a board of officers, and he didn't submit statements in his own behalf.  

5.  On 24 August 1965, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation which cleared him psychiatrically for the appropriate administrative separation action.  The medical officer's report shows the applicant was a 20-year old man who because of 
long-standing personality traits, would be described as passive-aggressive personality.  There was no evidence of medical disability and he was described as unsuitable for military service with present motivation.  

6.  On 1 September 1965, the unit commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  In his statement, the unit commander stated:

   a.  the applicant's performance on duty was unsatisfactory, he lacked general adaptability, and he was not willing to learn.  
   
   b.  he had counseled the applicant on several occasions, but to no avail.  The applicant had never been receptive and immediately returned to his rebellious ways.  
   
   c.  the applicant's general attitude towards his superiors, military authority, and assigned duties could be described as one of hatred for each.
   
   d.  there had been several instances of minor misconduct by the applicant involving using reproachful language, failing to report for duty, behavior disorders, and actions just short of being disrespectful towards his superiors.

7.  On 22 September 1965, he underwent a separation physical examination and his SF 88 indicates he had a passive aggressive personality and myopia with a physical profile of 111112.  This medical document does not indicate he had a skin condition. 

8.  On 29 October 1965, the separation authority waived rehabilitation and directed the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, paragraph 3 by reason of unfitness with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  He was discharged on 29 November 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 16 days of total active service.  

10.  He provided a self-authored statement in support of his claim. 

	a.  he started testing for entering the military while he was in high school.  He failed the physical three times and also the entrance exam.  A recruiter told him he could get in the Army if he volunteered for the draft.

	b.  his physical illnesses were poor hearing, low blood, and eczema of the skin.  The bleeding from the eczema was very bad.  He also had a sleep disorder from childhood.

	c.  at the age of 19, he was very lonely because this was his first time away from home and didn't know what to do.  

	d.  while he was in Germany, he was very depressed because of his skin condition and his wife got pregnant by someone she met in college.  

	e.  he's now 65 years old, takes medication for depression, and has been homeless at least a dozen times.

11.  On 9 January 1967, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

12.  Army Regulation 635-208 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who displayed undesirable habits and traits were subject to separation for unfitness.  While the separation authority could grant a general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable discharge, if warranted by the member's overall record of service, the issuance of an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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's discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

2.  His service record is void of medical documentation which shows he had a sleep disorder or skin condition.  
3.  Although he contends he was depressed and made bad decisions, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct which led to his discharge.  

4.  His service record shows he was convicted by a summary and special 
court-martial.  It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of general or honorable discharge and characterized his service as undesirable.

5.  The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in the applicant's case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his request for an upgrade of his discharge from undesirable to an honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge.

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)                                         AR20120011144





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011144



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1