MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           30 August 2001     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051849

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons                           		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature and that seeing so many of his fellow soldiers asking for help and dying caused him psychiatric stress. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was born on 23 October 1951 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 29 October 1968 and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic.  At the time of enlistment, the applicant was 17 years old.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 63B and was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona.  

On 9 June 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his place of duty from 1300 to 1600 hours on 6 June 1969.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $20.00 pay for 1 month and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 2 August 1969, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty and breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $26.00 pay for 1 month and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 19 September 1969, the applicant departed Fort Huachuca enroute to the Republic of Vietnam.  He arrived in Vietnam on 26 October 1969.

On 8 January 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for " . . . not being attentive upon his sentinel post, in an area designated as authorizing entitlement to special pay for duty subject to hostile fire."  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2, forfeiture of $25.00 pay for 1 month, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 6 April 1970, a psychiatrist evaluated the applicant.  The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having an " . . . immature personality with antisocial tendencies, manifested by impulsivity, low tolerance for frustration, extensive drug abuse, minimal stress - routine military duties, severe predisposition:  Longstanding history of similar characterological maladjustment; no impairment." He found that there was no psychiatric disease or defect, that the condition was not due to the applicant’s own misconduct, that it was not in the line of duty, and that it existed prior to service.  He concluded that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and 

had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He further concluded that efforts to rehabilitate him would unlikely be unsuccessful and recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212.

On 13 April 1970, the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty from 0630 to 1900 hours on 28 March 1970 and for willfully destroying the right windshield of a vehicle.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $67.00 pay per month for 2 months and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 6 May 1970, the applicant was notified that he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability.  The unit commander recommended the applicant be separated with a GD because of his habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking.  He was advised of his rights and acknowledged receipt.  

On 18 May 1970, having been advised by counsel, the applicant waived his rights to have his case considered by a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 26 May 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge from military service with a GD by reason of unsuitability.  Accordingly, on 29 May 1970, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 1 day of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statue of limitations.

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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was young and immature and that seeing his fellow soldiers dying caused him mental stress.  Even if true, there were other ways for the applicant to deal with his stress without committing the misconduct that led to his discharge.  The Board also noted that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing his duties and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

3.  Having examined all the circumstances, the Board determined that the applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

4.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  Additionally, the applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo ___  ___cjp___  ___lds __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051849	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010830	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700529	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9207	
2.	144.9301	
3.	144.9323	
4.		
5.		
6.