PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:           3 November 1999                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027930

	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.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

3.  He states, in effect, that his first court-martial for AWOL was due to his being away from home for the first time and homesickness; that his second court-martial was due to misconduct while under the influence of alcohol; and, that since his discharge from the Army he has not had any arrests nor has he committed any acts of misconduct due to alcohol.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 19 July 1966 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 20 years old.  His father abandoned the family as a result of alcoholism and the applicant left school in the 8th grade to become the principle breadwinner for the family;  that the applicant’s family encouraged him to join the Army in order to earn a higher income; and that his family became ambivalent when he could not send more money home from his pay each month.

5.  He was initially assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for basic combat training and for advanced individual training (AIT).  On 19 August 1966 he was diagnosed with an Antisocial Personality Disorder.  The examiner indicated that the applicant had a history of conflict with authority and his manner of dealing with unpleasant situations was to remove himself from the immediate environment.  An administrative separation was recommended.

6.  On 9 August 1966 he reported for sick call.  The examiner noted bed-wetting and prescribed Librium.  

7.  On 21 August 1966 the applicant went AWOL.  He returned to military control on 6 September 1966.

8.  On 7 September 1966 he was convicted by a special court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, and for violation of Article 91, willfully disobeying a lawful command to clean his M-14 rifle.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended).  

9.  On 18 November 1966 he went AWOL and remained absent until 5 March 1967.  He was dropped from the rolls for desertion on 22 December 1966.  On 7 March 1967 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months was vacated.  

10.  On 17 March 1967 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, and was sentenced to forfeit $30 pay per months for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for six months.  The applicant was confined at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, from 7 March 1967 to 23 August 1967.  He did not receive a punitive discharge and was programmed for return to duty after confinement.

11.  In March 1967 he wrote a letter to the President requesting advice and assistance in obtaining a hardship discharge.  The applicant indicated in his letter that his mother was suffering from financial hardship and he felt compelled to be at home to assist her.  He was advised that his application for a hardship discharge could not be approved while in confinement.  His mother wrote several letters to his command indicating that her son had a history of nerves as a result of being raised in an alcoholic home.  She also indicated that she needed him at home because her physical and mental health were fragile. 

12.  On 25 April 1967 a home visit was made by a social worker of the St. Louis Chapter of The American Red Cross in response to the applicant’s mother’s letter requesting assistance in obtaining a hardship discharge for her son due to her poor health and need for financial assistance.  During the social history survey, it was determined that the applicant was nervous as a child; he had nightmares and talked in his sleep; he wet the bed until he was 16; and, he was afraid of trouble or fighting.  She indicated that her son hated the “learning to kill” aspect of the Army.  She further indicated that the reason he went into the Army was to send her a lot of money, but once the “Q” allotment had been denied, he became worried over his dual responsibilities of the military and his family.  Finally, she stated that during his periods of AWOL, the applicant was at home working to earn money for his family.

13.  A DD Form 1476, Prisoner’s Admission Summary Date, was performed on 24 May 1967.  Personal history data indicated that the applicant had a good relationship with his mother and siblings and felt responsible for them.  His father was alcoholic and physically abusive, and he grew up nervous and anxious as a result of the violence in the home.  Mental status examination revealed that he seemed to identify shouted orders of the military with his father’s behavior.  It was noted that his mother was ambivalent about his entering the service.  The examiner recommended restoration, although it was noted that the applicant still held his family as his primary obligation.  

14.  A psychiatric examination was performed in June 1967 during clemency and parole review.  The examiner diagnosed the applicant with emotional instability reaction, chronic, moderate to severe, and manifested by passive obstructionism, fluctuating emotional attitudes, impulsive behavior under stress and use of poor judgment, low frustration tolerance, and chronic anxiety.  It was determined that he would be restored to duty after vocational training and education. 

15.  On 23 August 1967 the applicant was released from confinement and thereafter assigned to the 9th Maintenance Battalion in Germany where he acquired the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 63B, wheel vehicle repairman. 

16.  On 22 January 1968 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being drunk and disorderly in quarters.  His punishment included reduction to Pvt E-2, and 3 days restriction and extra duty.

17.  On 1 April 1968 he accepted an NJP for breaking restriction.  His punishment included 30 days restriction and extra duty to run concurrently.

18.  The unit commander indicated that he believed the applicant had a mental problem and requested a psychiatric examination prior to giving the April 1968 NJP.  The applicant was examined on 15 April 1968.  He was diagnosed with a passive dependent personality, manifested in general immaturity and impulsivity, poor judgment, meager and overly dependent relationships with others and early alcoholism.  The examiner determined that he had a character disorder and recommended he attend Alcoholics Anonymous.  He recommended administrative separation if his drinking continued. 

19.  On 19 July 1968 he was given another mental examination after getting into a fight with another servicemember.  The examiner diagnosed acute alcoholism, not due to own misconduct. 

20.  On 20 October 1968 he was again diagnosed with an emotional instability reaction, chronic, severe, existing prior to entry into service, not due to own misconduct.

21.  On 21 October 1968 he accepted an NJP for being disorderly in quarters.  His punishment included reduction to PVT E-1, forfeiture of $50 per month for 2 months and restriction and extra duty for 45 days to run concurrently.

22.  His chain of command indicated that he was normally an excellent worker but that his off-duty drinking interfered with his ability to be a satisfactory soldier.  His company commander indicated that all his NJPs were associated with the initiation of his drinking when he arrived in Germany.  

23.  On 9 December 1968 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 121, and was sentenced to forfeit $73 pay per months for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for 6 months (two previous convictions considered).  The applicant was confined at the USAREUR/US Forces Baden Wuertemburg Stockade.  On 24 January 1969 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for a period of 6 months and forfeiture of $73 per month for 6 months was remitted.  

24.  On 4 December 1968 his commanding officer initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability- frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The commander used the psychiatric examination performed in April 1968.  The applicant was notified that he was being separated from the Army by reason of unsuitability.

25.  On 17 January 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 30 January 1969 under the provisions of AR 635-212. 

26.  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.

27.  Army Regulations 635-212, Paragraph 6b(2), (4), and (6) also provided that members with character and behavior disorders, alcoholism, and enuresis be subject to separation for unsuitability.  An honorable or general under honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

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.  As early as 19 August 1966 he was diagnosed with an Antisocial Personality Disorder and recommended for an administrative separation.  Subsequent diagnoses showed a character and behavior disorder which included emotional instability reaction, chronic, moderate to severe, manifested by passive obstructionism, fluctuating emotional attitudes, impulsive behavior under stress and use of poor judgment, low frustration tolerance, and chronic anxiety.  It was noted that his character disorder existed prior to entry into service and was not due to his own misconduct.  As such, the Board determined that through no fault of his own, the applicant did not possess the capacity to become a satisfactory soldier.

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.  Furthermore, the Board noted that the applicant had been the major means of support for his mother and siblings since the age of 14; that he did not complete school precisely because of the needs of his family; and that his family problems partially mitigated his incidents of misconduct. 

5.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant could have been processed for discharge for unsuitability or unfitness.  In fact, the applicant was initially notified that he was being processed for unsuitability.  Had the applicant been processed for unsuitability, the worse characterization of service he could receive would be general, under honorable conditions.

6.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and taking cognizance of the time which 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. 

7.  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 30 January 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 30 January 1969, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__fne____  __esc___  __sk____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027930	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991103	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690130	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	4000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9309		
2. 9324		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.