BOARD DATE:	  7 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130008767 


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 discharged in 1965 because of his inability to follow orders.  He contends that he had a severe addiction to alcohol that impacted his military career and beyond.  He sought help and was admitted to a treatment center.  He can proudly say he has been sober for 34 years and has helped countless others with their addictions.  He did not realize the impact his general discharge would have on his ability to receive veterans' benefits.  He respectfully requests amendment of his service characterization to honorable.  In his youth while serving in the Army, he did not have the resources available to manage his addiction.  Since identifying his problem, he has been able to correct it and has been a model citizen.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 10 October 1962
* DD Form 214 for the period ending 21 April 1965
* DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate), dated 21 April 1965

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 16 May 1960, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 440.00 (Metal Work Helper).

3.  The applicant was advanced to the rank of private/pay grade E-2 on 16 September 1960.  On 7 January 1961, he departed the United States for duty in Germany.  He was advanced to the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3 on 24 February 1961.

4.  On 10 October 1962, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 25 days of creditable active duty service and held the permanent rank of private first class/
pay grade E-3.

5.  The applicant's military records show he accepted the following nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and was convicted by courts-martial as indicated:

* summary court-martial, 7 December 1962, for possessing more than one ration card
* summary court-martial, 29 May 1963, for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon and being absent without leave (AWOL)
* NJP, 8 July 1963, for possessing unauthorized alcohol
* NJP, 15 September 1963, for missing bed check
* special court-martial, 20 January 1964, for breaking arrest in quarters, assaulting another Soldier, and being AWOL for approximately 3 days
* NJP, 16 December 1964, for being AWOL from 3 to 8 December 1964
* summary court-martial, 23 March 1965, for being AWOL from 17 February to 16 March 1965

6.  On 1 April 1965, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination performed by the Chief, Mental Health Consultation Service, Fort Sheridan, IL.  The applicant was seen through the Post Stockade Screening Program at the request of his commanding officer.  Since the applicant's reenlistment in 1962, he had been acting out against the Army and recognized authority figures.  He stated he had been AWOL to facilitate his discharge so he could go back and help support his family which was having financial difficulties.  He stated he would be AWOL again to get out of the Army.  He was diagnosed with having a passive dependency and moderate passive-aggressive personality, manifested by a deep-set hostility toward authority figures and by acting out this hostility in a passive obstructive manner.  However, he was found to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He did not have any disqualifying mental or physical defect sufficient to warrant consideration by a physical evaluation board or other disposition through medical channels.  He was recommended for separation from the service.

7.  On 6 April 1965, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability) for unsuitability.  He cited the applicant's record of courts-martial and NJP's.  Furthermore, counseling by his platoon sergeant, platoon leader, and company first sergeant have been to no avail.  The applicant was no longer desired as a member of the platoon.  The commander did not want to retain him and did not believe transferring him to another unit would eliminate the problem.

8.  On 8 April 1965, the applicant stated he had been counseled and advised of the basis for his separation.  He declined the opportunity to request counsel or to have his case heard by a board of officers.  He also elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 15 April 1965, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 21 April 1965, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed a total of 4 years, 6 months, and 7 days of creditable active duty service and accrued 149 days of lost time.

10.  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.

11.  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 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.  An honorable or general discharge was considered appropriate.  Otherwise, return to duty or referral for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) was directed.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, 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 that his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to honorable because he had a severe addiction to alcohol that impacted his ability to follow orders.

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

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service less than meritorious.

4.  There is no evidence of record showing the applicant suffered from an alcohol addiction or that such addiction was the proximate cause of his repeated AWOL, misconduct, and failure to perform his duties.

5.  The applicant's desire to obtain veterans' benefits is not a valid basis to justify an upgrade of his discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, 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 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)                                         AR20130008767



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130008767



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1