MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            25 APRIL 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065565

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or general.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has endured the stigma of his discharge for 33 years.  His father served honorably in World War II and his grandfather honorably in World    War I.  He became addicted to drugs at Fort Gordon, Georgia affecting his ability to function, resulting in his behavior which caused his undesirable discharge.  He did not commit any crimes.  He would have honorably served his country were it not for the drugs.  He was very young with no understanding of what drugs could do to a person.  He is currently in the process of completing a rehabilitation program.  He requests relief from the stigma.

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

The applicant was inducted into the Army on 3 May 1967 at age 19 and was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for training.  His enlisted qualification record shows that he completed basic combat training at Fort Gordon and remained at that installation for advanced training.  On 30 August 1967 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully using provoking words to a fellow soldier.

On 15 September 1967 the applicant was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for advanced training.  On 4 October 1967 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for two counts of AWOL, for failure to go to his place of duty, for disrespect to an NCO, and for failure to obey a lawful order.

A 12 October 1967 report of neuropsychiatric examination revealed that the applicant had stated that he refused to go to class and had difficulty getting along with others.  The report indicated that the applicant stated that he could not take orders, that he went AWOL two times because he did not like being there and was thinking of going AWOL again.  He did not get along with others in his unit and had been in a few fights.  His military adjustment had been marginal and attempts to rehabilitate him had been unsuccessful.  He felt that he could not become a good soldier and desired to be separated.  He was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant was cooperative, well oriented, and free of any overt neurotic or psychotic symptoms, but showed lack of judgment and poor impulse.  He 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 had no mental disease or defect sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated as expeditiously as possible.  He stated that the applicant’s character and behavior disorder was of such severity that he could not be expected to respond to counseling, transfer, or confinement.

Before a special court-martial which convened at Fort Dix on 13 November 1967, the applicant was arraigned, tried, and pled guilty to the charge of disrespect to an officer and to the charge of disobeying a lawful command.  The applicant’s enlisted qualification record shows that he was confined from 6 October 1967 to                        16 November 1967.  

Before a special court-martial which convened at Fort Dix on 8 January 1968, the applicant was arraigned, tried, and pled guilty to the charge of AWOL from                    28 November 1967 to 23 January 1968 and to the charge of breaking restriction.

On 29 January 1968 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Army because of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive. 

On 29 January 1968 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  That officer noted that the applicant had received two court-martials, had received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions, and that he had been counseled on seven occasions.

A 7 February 1968 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  That report did indicate that he had an inadequate personality.  In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that his health was excellent, but that he was very nervous due to mental strain.

A 16 February 1968 addendum to the 12 October 1967 neuropsychiatric examination indicates that the applicant was diagnosed as having a sociopathic personality.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant should be separated under appropriate regulations and that his retention could be expected to result in continued ineffectiveness and disciplinary infractions.

On 14 March 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the Army and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 23 March 1968.  He had 7 months and    13 days of service, and 99 days of lost time.

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 separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
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.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age and his good post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

4.  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 that requirement.

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

__JL____  __GDP__  __CG ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065565	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020425	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	360	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.