PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028533

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Margaret V. Thompson		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 essence that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

3.  The applicant states that he was told that he could get his UD upgraded to an honorable 6 months after the date of his separation.  He is making this request so that he will be able to get a better job and so that he may be able to obtain veterans benefits.  He submits a letter that was written in his behalf by his spouse in support of his request.

4.  The available records show that on 20 April 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13D (Little John Missile Crewman).  On 9 September 1965, he was assigned to the 12th US Army Missile Detachment, Oderzo, Italy.

5.  On 22 November 1965, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provision of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent from his unit from 20-21 November 1965.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 5 July 1966, he accepted NJP, for being drunk and disorderly in a public place and for bringing discredit upon himself and the US Army.  His punishment included extra duty and restriction.  On 12  July 1966, he accepted NJP for breaking restriction.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, 14 days extra duty and restriction.

7.  On 14 October 1966, he accepted NJP for being absent from his unit on 
2 October 1966, and for wrongly appearing in an Italian bar (out of uniform) wearing an undershirt as an outer garment.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 and forfeiture of pay.

8.  On 12 November 1966, the applicant was hospitalized for a self-inflicted laceration to his left arm.  He was discharged to duty status on 14 November 1966.

9.  On 14 November 1966, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for the purpose of determining whether or not he should be discharged for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, before the expiration of his term of service.  He was also notified of the rights available to him.

10.  The applicant authenticated an undated statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He waived representation by legal counsel and he waived consideration of his case, or a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 22 November 1966, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to suffer from an “emotional unstable personality.  He was oriented and alert.  There was no evidence of psychosis or psychoneurosis.  He manifested traits of character consistent with those of a person with an emotionally unstable personality which is not amenable to the present forms of psychotherapy.  His general behavior in the past and at present indicates a complete disregard for the requirements of the military.  In view of his behavior and tendency to act out aggressively by the means of self-inflicted wounds, it was the examining official’s opinion that he should not be maintained within the military setting.  He was not motivated for continued military service and his mode of adjustment is inconsistent with continued military service.  It was strongly recommended that he be administratively separated from the military service under the provisions or Army Regulation 635-212.” 

12.  On 19 December 1966, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended separation for unfitness, due to being involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with a UD.  On 9 January 1967, competent approved the discharge and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness, for being involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

13.  On 20 January 1967, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
1 year, 9 month and 1 day of active military service.  His DD Form 214 does not show any lost time.

14.  The available records show that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge on 16 October 1973. 

15.	Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for
The elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.

16.	Further, that same regulation, also at paragraph 6, provided for the
separation of individuals for unsuitability by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  They would be awarded either a general discharge (GD) or an HD.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  The applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for 
acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge. 

3.  However, the Board also noted the psychological evaluation and concluded that his emotionally unstable personality rendered him more likely unsuitable for military service than unfit.  His inability to adapt to military life and his associated misconduct was mitigated by his mental status at the time that he served.

4.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the applicant’s mental status, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by changing his characterization of service to a GD.  However, the reason for discharge should not be changed.

5.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically 
upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records under the Provisions of Title 10, US Code, Section 1552) requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 

6.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing that the UD the individual concerned received on 
20 January 1967 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a general discharge on 20 January 1967; and
c.  by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the RA, dated 10 March 1970, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__wtm___  ___ra___  __mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Walter T. Morrison___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028533	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670620	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfit for further service by reason of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	Partial Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	A51.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.