PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025427

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3.  He states, in effect, that he was young and immature and allowed his inability to get along with his first sergeant to ruin his attitude about the Army; that he regrets his mistakes and asks that his indiscretions of his youth be forgiven; and, that he has been a good citizen since leaving the Army.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 14 August 1967 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  The record also shows that at the time of his enlistment he was 17 years old and had completed the 10th grade.  The applicant achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 30 (i.e., Mental Category IV, slow learner).

5.  He was initially assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana, for basic combat training and completed advanced individual training (AIT) for military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He remained at Fort Gordon for permanent assignment.

6.  On 1 April 1968 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful command.  His punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of $30, and 30 days extra duty and restriction.

7.  On 27 September 1968 he accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment imposed consisted of reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $45 per month for 2 months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction.

8.  On 30 December 1968 he accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of $26 and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

9.  On 19 January 1969 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of a lawful general regulation, willfully disobeying a lawful order, and disrespect to a superior noncommissioned officer.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, forfeiture of $72 per month for 3 months, and reduction to private/E-1. 

10.  On 7 February 1969 the unit commander referred the applicant for a mental hygiene consultation.  He was diagnosed with a chronic, immature personality, manifested by the inability to adjust to a military environment and to follow orders.  The examiner noted that the applicant’s history indicated that he was from a broken home where there was ineffective parental guidance; that he was a school dropout; that he possessed marginal social adaptation skills; and, that he had difficulty forming friendships.  He was recommended for administrative separation.

11.  On 11 February 1969 the unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness.   

12.  On 26 February 1969 the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A.  Accordingly, he was discharged for unfitness on 5 March 1969 under the provisions of AR 635-212.   He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 7 days active military service, and 44 days lost time due to confinement.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separations for unfitness.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

14.  The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under the provisions of the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) on 14 February 1978 and denied his request

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s age at the time of enlistment, his educational and social history, as well as the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and determined that the applicant’s capacity to become a satisfactory soldier was diminished by his lack of social skills and his chronic immature personality.   

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s actions of misconduct.  However, it should be noted that his offenses were violations of military rules and regulations and were not otherwise serious offenses against society. 

4.  Taking cognizance of the time that has elapsed since his discharge from service, the Board determined that the applicant’s characterization of service is inequitable.  It appears that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 5 March 1969.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 5 March 1969, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.
 
3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvoc___  ___eb__  ___rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025427	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690305	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	4000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9302		
 2. 9306		
 3. 9324		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.