PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           21 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044475

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy Jr.		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 that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he answered the call to serve his country and he served honorably until 17 April 1968; that he went to Vietnam when many refused to go; that there are many Vietnam veterans with less than honorable discharges and that these veterans need help now.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was honorably discharged on 29 April 1966, after completing 2 years of active military service.  On 22 July 1966, after a short break in service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  The applicant entered this period of service as a private/E-2 and continued to serve in his previous military occupational specialty (MOS), 94B (Cook). 

5.  On 2 August 1966 the applicant was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam.  He served without incident until 8 March 1967.

6.  Between 8 March 1967 and 8 May 1967, the applicant was held in pretrial confinement.

7.  On 9 May 1967, the applicant was convicted by General Court-martial of two specifications of assault.  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), (suspended until 1 November 1967), confinement at hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 6 months and a reduction to private/E-1.  The applicant was held in confinement from 9 May 1967 until 5 June 1967.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 30 July 1967.  The applicant was confined for 28 days from 30 October 1967 until 26 November 1967.

8.  On 18 February 1968, the applicant departed Vietnam enroute to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He served at Fort Bragg for approximately 90 days before he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, with his ultimate destination being the Republic of Vietnam.

9.  On 1 November 1968, the applicant arrived for his second tour of service in Vietnam.  On 27 November the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 16 December 1968, when he returned to his unit.

10.  On 22 January 1969, a psychiatrist evaluated the applicant.  The psychiatrist found the applicant to have a chronic passive-aggressive personality disorder and that it had existed prior to military service.  It was also noted that the applicant had an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 23 (mental category IV).

11.  On 29 January 1969, the squadron chaplain stated that through counseling with the applicant, he now understood and could see the underlying motivations that served to confirm the attitudes and perspectives the applicant had demonstrated the last few months.  The chaplain concluded that the applicant was a potentially capable soldier, but that he was not at this point in time due to the emotional problems he was going through.  He further stated that rehabilitation would be too complex and involved, and that it would hardly be in the interest of the Army.

12.  On 29 January 1969, the applicant was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL, disobeying a lawful order not to wear a field cap, and breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended 30 days), a forfeiture of $78.00 pay, and a reduction to private/E-1.

13.  On 10 March 1969, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for elimination from the Army under Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 for reasons of unfitness.  He also stated that the elimination was based on the professional psychiatric reports, the Squadron Chaplain’s report, and his belief that the applicant was no longer able to make a contribution for the good of the service.

14.  On 12 March 1969, the company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Section I, Paragraph 6, AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness with a UD and that the minimum 2-month reassignment rehabilitation requirement be waived.  The company commander stated that the applicant had been counseled on several occasions by his former commander as to his actions, indifference, apathetic attitudes, and lack of self-discipline, excessive aggression, and rejection of rehabilitation.  He further stated the applicant was no longer competent enough nor possessed enough will to do either himself or the unit any further good.  The commander reiterated the Division Psychiatrist and the Squadron Chaplain’s beliefs that further attempts to rehabilitate the applicant would be useless.

15.  On 12 March 1969, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with a UD.

16.  On 12 March 1969, the appropriate authority waived the 2-month rehabilitative reassignment requirement and approved the discharge with the issuance of a UD for unfitness under the provisions of AR 635-212.  Accordingly, on 16 April 1969, the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 4 days of his 3-year enlistment and accruing 139 days of lost time. His total creditable service was 4 years, 7 months, and 4 days.

17.  On 21 October 1969, the applicant appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  The ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge; however, two of the five board members voted for an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general, under honorable conditions.  They considered the applicant’s two tours in Vietnam, one of which was well beyond the normal 1-year tour of duty and his testimony concerning his treatment during his second tour sufficiently mitigating to grant partial relief by voting to upgrade the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.

18.  It was also noted in the summary of evidence for the applicant’s general court-martial and the applicant’s testimony to the ADRB that he had earned a Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB); however, it is not noted any other place in the applicant’s military records.  The record does show the applicant earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal w/60 Device and the Parachutist Badge.

19.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, established the policy and provided the procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  This regulation, in pertinent part, provided that those members with character and behavior disorders be subject to separation for unsuitability.  A General or Honorable Discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated for unsuitability.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Section I, Paragraph 6, AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that wound tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic passive aggressive personality disorder.  The Board further noted that the psychiatrist stated that the condition existed prior to service and that because of his mental status, attempts to rehabilitate the applicant would be useless.

3.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant could have been processed for discharge for unfitness or unsuitability under the provisions of Section I, Paragraph 6a or 6b of AR 635-212.  The unit commander referred the applicant for a psychiatric examination and was aware of his diagnosed personality disorder prior to initiating separation proceedings.  Had the applicant been processed for unsuitability, the worst characterization of service he could receive would be general, under honorable conditions.

4.  The Board also noted the applicant’s contentions regarding his service to his country and his willingness to serve two tours of service in Vietnam while others refused to go.  While the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, the Board concluded that the applicant’s diagnosed personality disorder and his service to his country mitigated his misconduct.  Accordingly, the Board found the characterization of service to be inequitable.

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 service with a General Discharge Certificate on 16 April 1969 under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, date 16 April 1969, in lieu of the undesirable discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__tap___  __rwa___  __teo____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Thomas A. Pagan___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044475	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001121	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690416	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9208	
2.	144.9220	
3.	144.9324	
4.		
5.		
6.