PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           2 March 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031323

	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. Edwin S. Castle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 honorable.

3.  He states, in effect, that he was stationed in Hawaii and had significant trouble adjusting to the separation from his family and friends; that he had requested leave about the time President Kennedy was killed and that as a reaction to being denied leave time he went drinking and was apprehended by the military police; that his military records will show that he did his job well and that his misconduct was an isolated incident. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 31 May 1963 in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  The record also indicates the applicant achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 36, (i.e., Mental Category of III), that he had a spotty academic record which included frequent truancy and fighting with teachers.  He was the eighth of eighteen children born to his parents.

5.  He successfully completed basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 630.00 (Auto Maintenance Helper) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Thereafter he was assigned to Hawaii.  

6.  The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

7.  On 9 March 1964 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to report for kitchen police (KP).  His imposed punishment was reduction to private/E-2, forfeiture of $23, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

8.  On 14 April 1964 he accepted NJP for having an altered military identification card in his possession.  His imposed punishment was forfeiture of $25 per month for two months, and 30 days restriction and extra duty.

9.  On 9 June 1964 he accepted NJP for failing to report for KP.  His imposed punishment was placement in correctional custody for 30 days (suspended until 1 September 1964) and forfeiture of $25 per month for 2 months.

10.  On 3 August 1964 he accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty for 5 hours.  His imposed punishment was an oral reprimand, 14 days restriction and extra duty, and detention of $40 through December 1964.

11.  On 20 August 1964 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.  The examiner diagnosed a characterologic defect – passive aggressive personality disorder.   

12.  On 29 August 1964 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 134, breaking restriction; Article 86, absenting himself from his unit for 4 hours; and, Article 116, causing a breach of peace by wrongfully engaging in a fist fight with another soldier.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months (suspended until 29 November 1964) and forfeiture of $25 per month for 3 months.

13.  On 14 September 1964 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor was vacated.  The applicant was confined from 14 September to 9 October1964 for a total of 26 days. 

14.  On 15 September 1964 the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208, by reason of unfitness.  The commander indicated that he initiated separation procedures because of the applicant’s frequent involvement with military authorities. 

15.  On 21 September 1964 the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 635-208 by reason of unfitness and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A.  Accordingly, he was discharged for unfitness on 17 October 1964. 

16.  Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  

17.  Army Regulation 635-209, also in effect, provided the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service.  This regulation, in pertinent part, provided that members with character and behavior disorders be subject to separation for unsuitability.  An HD or GD was normally considered appropriate. 

18.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-208 by reason of unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed with a character defect and personality disorder prior to being convicted by special court-martial.

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.  The Board also noted the applicant’s history of truancy and fighting in grade school, as well as his spotty academic background.

4.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant could have been processed for discharge for unsuitability or unfitness.  The unit commander referred the applicant for a psychiatric examination, and was aware of his diagnosed character disorder, prior to initiating separation proceedings.  Had the applicant been processed for unsuitability, the worse characterization of service he could receive would be a GD.

5.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s diagnosed personality disorder mitigated the misconduct of record.  Accordingly, the Board found the characterization of service to be inequitable.

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 service with a General Discharge Certificate on 17 October 1964.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General  Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 17 October 1964 in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions 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:  

___esc__  __sk____  __kan____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031323	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000302	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19641017	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	5000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  9236		
 2.  9306		
 3.  0100		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.