MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082054

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should not have been enlisted because he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder for years before he entered the Army.  In support of his application he submits a typed copy of his 1966 Army psychiatric evaluation.

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

He enlisted on 16 April 1966 and completed basic training with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  However, he was absent without leave (AWOL) from advanced individual training, for which he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He was subsequently convicted by two special court-martials and never finished training.  

At a psychiatric evaluation on 9 September 1966 the applicant reported he had been an excessively emotional and nervous person since childhood.  He also reported being a bed wetter all his life.  He reported that numerous times he had been confined in juvenile facilities as a run-away.  The last resulted in his enlistment in the Army because the judge gave him a choice of joining or being referred to the state juvenile authority.  The psychiatrist provided a diagnosis of severe emotionally unstable personality with schizoid features.  The applicant was found to be able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in elimination proceedings.  

On 24 January 1967 the battalion commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. The applicant was advised of and waived his rights to have his case considered by a board of officers, to be represented by counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge.

On 9 February 1967 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He had 2 months and 10 days of creditable service and approximately 212 days 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.

On 15 July 1968 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant request to upgrade his discharge.
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 fact that the applicant reported a possibly disqualifying history at his 1966 psychiatric evaluation does not make that report accurate.  Furthermore, if it was accurate, the applicant, and not Army or even the judge was responsible for his enlistment.  If the reported facts were true and if he had revealed them, as he should have done, the applicant would not have been enlisted without a waiver.

3.  There is no available evidence that either at the time of his enlistment or at the time of his discharge the applicant was so impaired by emotional, psychological or psychiatric factors that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right.  In fact, there is a qualified medical finding that, prior to the discharge, the exact opposite was the case.

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 this 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

_TSK___  _WDP ___  __FCJ __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082054	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20030812 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670209	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A50.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.