IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006705 


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 his earlier request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states the punishment was too harsh and unfair. 

* he was discharged with an undesirable discharge due to being absent without leave (AWOL) on several occasions
* prior to joining the military, he had no previous record of mental illness; while in service, he began to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which led him to go AWOL
* in 1992, he initiated a request for correction of his records and obtained several letters of support but he did not submit his application because he was discouraged by stories of rejection
* later, with help from the Department of Veterans Affairs, he put together a strong case to the Board for review
* now, 22 years later, he feels he can file an application without any mental reservations
* he wants the Board to address the inaccuracies involving his military service due to conditions beyond his control
* he liked serving in the Army and he only wants to set the record straight with no intent of monetary gain or benefits  

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* American Red Cross cover letter - previously submitted
* Previous DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records)
* Letter, dated 3 February 1992, from his pastor - previously submitted 
* Letter, dated 8 January 1992, from Mr. E.W. Thomas - previously submitted
* Self-authored letter, dated 7 January 1992 - previously submitted
* Letter, dated 7 January 1992, from Mr. W.S. Fuller - previously submitted
* Letter, dated 8 January 1992, from Mr. R.E. Lee - previously submitted 

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-07869, on 4 August 1993. 

2.  The applicant does not meet the two-tiered criteria for a request for reconsideration in that her request was neither received within 1 year of the original Board's decision nor does it contain new evidence.  However: 

	a.  The previous Record of Proceedings did not fully explain the difference between an honorable and a general characterization of service or explain why the applicant did not meet the criteria for either characterization. 

	b.  Therefore, as a one-time exception to policy, his request will be reconsidered by the Board.

3.  The applicant’s available records show he was inducted into the Army and entered active duty in Lexington, KY, on 12 June 1951.  At the time of his separation, he held military occupational specialty 4745 (Automatic Rifleman). 

4.  His available records also show he was advanced to private/E-2 on 10 May 1952 and he served in Germany from March to May 1952.  His records contain a copy of a DD Form 493 (Record of Previous Convictions) that shows an extensive history of courts-martial as follows:

	a.  Headquarters, 502nd Airborne Infantry Regiment, Fort Campbell, KY, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 253, shows he was convicted of one specification of being AWOL from 6 to 12 October 1951.  He was sentenced to 25 days of restriction and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.  The sentence was adjudged and was approved on 17 October 1951.

	b.  Headquarters, 502nd Airborne Infantry Regiment, Fort Campbell, KY, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 273, shows he was convicted of one specification of being AWOL from 26 to 28 November 1951.  He was sentenced to a reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and a forfeiture of $25.00 pay.  The sentence was adjudged on 6 December 1951 and was approved on 7 December 1951.

	c.  Headquarters, Sonthofen Detachment, 307th Replacement Deport, Germany, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 55, shows he was convicted of one specification of being AWOL from 25 to 27 March 1952.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $25.00 pay.  The sentence was adjudged and was approved on 28 March 1952.

	d.  Headquarters, Sonthofen Detachment, 307th Replacement Deport, Germany, Summary Court-Martial Order Number 60, shows he was convicted of two specifications of breaking restriction on 29 and on 31 March 1952.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and confinement at hard labor for 1 month.  The sentence was adjudged and was approved on 2 April 1952.

5.  The applicant's records contain multiple DD Form 578 (Offense or Incident Report) and/or WD AGO Form 19-71 (Report of Arrest - Delinquent Incident) that show:

	a.  on 6 May 1952, he was apprehended by military police for a uniform violation: he was wearing class B uniform after cutoff hours and he did not possess a pass.  He was released to his organization. 

	b.  on 9 May 1952, he was apprehended by military police for a uniform violation: he was out of uniform with the wrong type brass, a dirty uniform, and unauthorized wearing of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He was also wearing the 43rd Division patch as well as the 4th Infantry Division patch.  He was released to his organization. 

	c.  on 12 May 1952, he was apprehended for a uniform violation: he was wearing Class B uniform with no shirt.  He was issued a DD Form 46 and released.  However, few hours later, he was apprehended again for failing to comply with the DD Form 460.

6.  On 12 May 1952, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the request of the Division Inspector General (IG) after the applicant complained his sergeant had threatened to kill him.  The IG had investigated these charges and found them unfounded.  The Neuropsychiatrist stated: 

* the applicant told of great detail of the insults he had received from his sergeant
* he lied about his military record with no apparent qualms or conscience
* he did not appear uneasy or concerned; he appeared self-confident and superficially friendly
* he stated he drank to excess when he first came overseas but had not been doing so lately
* he indicated he had only received one court-martial for one period of AWOL and he had not been in any other trouble; his record showed four instances of court-martial and five periods of AWOL
* it was apparent he was a chronic unmitigated liar in addition to being a repeated offender
* it was also apparent no punishment or experience had any influence on his behavior; if he had continued in the service, he would get into additional and probably more serious difficulties; his discharge is recommended
* he does not have neurosis or psychosis (insanity) and there was nothing to suggest he was mentally irresponsible; there were no psychiatric conditions that warranted hospitalization or discharge through medical channels 
* he was far free from any mental defects, derangement, or disease as to be able to tell right from wrong, adhere to the right, and cooperate before a court-martial or a board

7.  Also on 12 May 1952, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention due to his habitual AWOL.  The immediate commander remarked that the applicant had four court-martial convictions, his character was poor, and his efficiency was unknown.   

8.  On 13 May 1952, the applicant was directed to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be separated from the Army for unfitness.  The applicant acknowledged receipt.  

9.  On 19 May 1952, a board of officers convened at Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, Frankfurt, Germany, for the purpose of determining the applicant's suitability for retention.  The board found that the applicant's record revealed evidence of traits of character which rendered his retention in the service undesirable, namely, repeated AWOL and definite lack of moral responsibility.  The board recommended the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  The applicant was discharged on 28 June 1952 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 11 months and 19 days of creditable active service and he had 24 days of lost time.

11.  On 6 May 1952, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his discharge and determined it was proper and equitable.  Accordingly, it denied his petition to upgrade his discharge. 

12.  On 11 March 1992, he submitted an application to this Board requesting an upgrade of his discharge.  The wording of his previous application and the supporting attachments/enclosures were exactly the same as his current application.  However, on 4 August 1993, the Board denied his request. 

13.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by 
giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 615-368, also stated, in pertinent part, that a board of officers would recommend that the individual either be discharged because of unfitness or unsuitability, or retained in the service.  The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current period of service so warranted.  As examples, such circumstances would apply where the cause of unfitness had been minor, relative to the length of efficient service or where there had been a definite effort at self control; or where an individual had, during his current period of service, distinguished himself by an act of heroism, which in itself reflected great credit on the individual and the military service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  
	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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.  

	b.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states 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 evidence of record shows the applicant had a history of misconduct as evidenced by his four instances of court-martial, three instances of arrest, multiple instances of AWOL, undesirable military traits and habits, and resentment of authority.  Accordingly, his chain of command recommended a board of officers be convened under applicable regulations for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention in the Army.  The board found him unfit for retention and recommended his discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The convening authority approved the board's findings and recommendation.  

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations at the time, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The separation authority appropriately directed issuance of an undesirable discharge based on his overall record during the period under review.  There is neither an error nor an injustice.

3.  Contrary to his contention that PTSD caused him to go AWOL, the evidence of record clearly shows he underwent a psychiatric evaluation prior to his separation.  The psychiatrist found the applicant did not have neurosis or psychosis (insanity) and there was nothing to suggest he was mentally irresponsible; there were no psychiatric conditions that warranted hospitalization or discharge through medical channels.  He was free from any mental defects, derangement, or disease as to be able to tell right from wrong, adhere to the right, and cooperate before a court-martial or a board.  He provides no evidence now that he has been diagnosed with PTSD.

4.  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 also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general or an honorable 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-07869, dated 4 August 1993.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140006705





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006705



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1