PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028810

	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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 shortly before entering service his mother and grandmother died and he was still under a great deal of depression and stress; and, that he went AWOL to be with other family members because he was unable to adjust to his mother’s death.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 20 April 1966 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  The record also indicates the applicant achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 32, (i.e., Mental Category of III/average learner).  He completed the 8th grade and barber school.  He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for basic combat training.

5.  On 28 September 1966 the applicant went AWOL.  He surrendered to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 23 October 1966.

6.  On 2 November 1966 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $60 and hard labor without confinement for 30 days.  

7.  On 3 November 1966 the applicant was reassigned to a new basic combat training company and recycled because he had missed an excessive amount of training due to his AWOL.  He reported directly to his training officer that he went AWOL because he suddenly became afraid and had to run from being around all the people in his platoon.

8.  On 13 November 1966 he again departed AWOL.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities in his hometown of El Dorado, Kansas, and returned to military control on 15 November 1966. 

9.  On 19 November 1966 the applicant’s aunt provided a written statement to the commander in response to his letter of notification that the applicant was AWOL.  The applicant’s aunt indicated that the applicant had led an extremely sheltered life until his enlistment in the Army.  His father was killed in action during World War II and his mother had protected him from life’s normal responsibilities and decisions.  He was often truant, with a history of fighting with other children.  He had difficulty making friends and never experienced any exposure to male role models prior to service. 

10.  On 8 December 1966 a psychiatrist at the request of the company commander evaluated the applicant.  The examiner diagnosed an emotionally unstable personality disorder, noting that the applicant had borderline intelligence and sociopathic traits.  The applicant reported a history of truancy, difficulty making friends, prior psychiatric treatment, fear of girls and groups of people, chronic nervousness, and heavy drinking.   The psychiatrist recommended the applicant’s immediate separation.

11.  On 13 December 1966 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, for AWOL and failure to follow a lawful order.  He was sentenced to forfeit $60 pay per month for 6 months and to be confined at hard labor for 6 months.  The applicant was confined at the Post Stockade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, from 25 November 1966 to 14 March 1967.  

12.  On 13 March 1967, after consultation with the mental health examiner, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to separate the applicant for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212 with a general discharge.  

13.  On 27 March 1967 the intermediate commanders recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of a general discharge.

14.  On 17 April 1967 the separating authority approved his separation with an undesirable discharge.  Accordingly, he was discharged for unfitness on 20 April 1967, and credited with 2 months and 22 days active military service. 

15.  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 UD was normally considered appropriate.

16.  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. 

17.  The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade on 8 June 1982.

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 applicant was diagnosed with an Emotional Unstable Personality Disorder prior to his special court-martial.  The Board noted that the psychiatrist indicated that the applicant’s sociopathic traits and emotional instability were not amenable to continued training and recommended immediate separation.  It was also 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 misconduct.  However, it should be noted that his offenses were violations of military rules and regulations and were not otherwise serious offenses against society.   It is also noted that the commander and all intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant be separated with a general discharge.  

4.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant could have been processed for discharge for unsuitability or unfitness.   It is noted that the company commander was cognizant of the applicant’s mental condition and consulted with the applicant’s psychiatrist prior to his recommendation to separate the applicant.  Had the applicant been processed for unsuitability, the worse characterization of service he could receive would be general, under honorable conditions.

5.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and 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. 

6.  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 Army with a General Discharge Certificate on 20 April 1967.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 20 April 1967, 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:  

  LLS              JPS          CJS        GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028810	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670420	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.5100.0000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.8608.0000	
2. 	144.9456.0000	
3.	144.9307.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.