IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210005950 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * reconsideration of his request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, dated 21 April 1960 * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2000045488 on 18 January 2001, AR20120004018 on 16 March 2012, AR20130005356 on 16 April 2013, and AR20150015725 on 12 January 2016. 2. The applicant states his under other than honorable conditions discharge was given because of mental abuse and other mental health problems that developed during his service, and indicates posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health issues as issues/conditions related to his request. 3. He enlisted on the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years on 17 December 1958. 4. A DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the following effective dates for the applicant: * 8 January 1959 – Basic Combat Training (BCT) Fort Leonard Wood, MO * 20 March 1959 – Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Fort Chaffee, AR * 21 April 1960 – Discharge 5. A DA Form 24 (Service Record) for the period from 17 December 1958 to 21 April 1960 shows the applicant’s rank/grade/date of rank: * Private (Recruit), PVT/(E-1) – 17 December 1958 * Private, PV2/(E-2) – 17 April 1959 * Private First Class, PFC/(E-3) – 25 November 1959 * Private, PV2/(E-2) – 3 February 1960 * Private (Recruit), PVT/(E-1) – 4 May 1960 6. A DD Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) shows the following offenses: * Failure to repair, reveille formation on 26 June 1959 * Misconduct, missing work call formation on 14 August 1959 * Failure to repair, reveille formation on 7 March 1960 7. A DA Form 26 (Record of Court Martial Conviction) shows the following court- martials and the offenses: * Special – on/about 25 March 1959, did steal two shirts, two cotton khaki shirts, and one jacket, the property of another service member; the court sentenced him to forfeiture of $57.00 of pay for two months * Summary – on/about 1 July 1959, without proper authority failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty; the court sentenced him to hard labor without confinement for 14 days and to forfeit $50.00 of pay for one month * Summary – on/about 11 March 1960, without proper authority did absent himself from his prescribed place of duty, and also broke restrictions that limited him to the company area; the court sentenced him to hard labor without confinement for 45 days and the forfeiture of $30.00 of pay for one month 8. A certificate, dated 25 February 1960, from the U.S. Army Hospital, Neuropsychiatric Consultation Section, Fort Rucker, AL, shows the applicant underwent an examination on 14 February 1960. The provider opined, in part, that the applicant possessed sufficient capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, and concluded the applicant was mentally responsible for his acts. He further added there were no disqualifying mental or physical diseases or defects sufficient to warrant his discharge through medical channels. 9. In a statement, dated 25 March 1960, the applicant acknowledged that he was in an elimination action initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) and AR 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability) and that he: * understood the action as explained to him * was counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended * was offered the opportunity of, and requested of counsel * did not expressly waive and voluntarily relinquish his rights to the hearing before a Board of Officers * did not submit a statement in his own behalf 10. A notification of a pending board action, dated 28 March 1960, was published by the 21st Aviation Company, 2nd Battle Group, 31st Infantry, Fort Rucker, AL, that shows the applicant was notified that a Board of Officers was to convene on 1 April 1960 to consider whether or not the applicant was unsuitable for further military service because of his character or behavior disorders. 11. On 28 March 1960, the applicant acknowledged his receipt of the notice of the pending board action. He requested counsel to represent him, and that additional witnesses be called. 12. On 29 March 1960, the official request for the applicant’s counsel was submitted by the Adjutant, Headquarters, 2nd Battle Group, 31st Infantry, Fort Rucker, AL. 13. A transcript of the report of proceedings by a Board of Officers shows the board initially convened at Fort Rucker on 4 April 1960. The Board reconvened on 5 April 1960, and was adjourned later on this day. 14. A DA Form 37 (Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers), dated 5 April 1960, shows that under the provisions of AR 635-208, the Board found evidence that rendered retention in the service undesirable due to the applicant’s established pattern for shirking. The Board recommend the applicant be discharged from the service because of the undesirable habits or traits of character, and that a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge) be furnished to the applicant. The action was approved on 15 April 1960. 15. On 21 April 1960, the applicant was discharged from the Army. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged in accordance with section II, paragraph 3a, d and e, with separation program number (SPN) 28B, 386 and 28F, and AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He was issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge) with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. He was credited with completing 1 year, 4 months, and 5 days of net active service during this period. 16. A DD Form 149, dated 27 June 1962, shows the applicant requested a review of his undesirable discharge with an appeal for an upgrade to an honorable discharge. 17. An OSA (Office of The Secretary of the Army) Form 172A (Review of Discharge or Separation), dated 28 August 1962, shows that a hearing was convened for the consideration of the applicant's appeal. The appeal was denied. 18. On 13 September 1962, the applicant was notified of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determination that he was properly discharged, and that his request for a change of his discharge was denied. The information was mailed to the applicant at an address in Michigan. 19. On 14 November 1962, the applicant was provided the information again that the ADRB determined he was properly discharged, and that his request for a change of his discharge was denied. The information was mailed to the applicant at an address in Ohio. 20. A letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, dated 25 May 1965, shows a response to the applicant in regards to a letter written to the President, wherein he requested a change to his discharge. A memorandum for record was added to the applicant’s record copy of the response letter, that shows the applicant requested a change in his discharge because at the time of his enlistment and dishonorable discharge, he was too young to realize just what he was really doing. 21. A letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, dated 26 May 1965, shows a response to the applicant in regards to the letter written to the President, wherein he requested a change to his discharge. The applicant was informed that the ADRB determined the discharge was just and proper, and that he may apply to the ABCMR if he believed that he was treated unfairly. A memorandum for record was added to the applicant’s record copy of the response letter, that shows, in part, that he was discharged UOTHC pursuant to the approved recommendation of the Board of Officers by reason of having an established pattern of shirking. In response to an inquiry in behalf of the applicant, Congressman was informed in September 1964 that the ADRB would rehear the case upon receipt of new and material evidence not previously available to the Board. There was no record of new evidence at that time. 22. A DD Form 149, dated 31 May 1965, shows the applicant requested his discharge be changed because of an error and an injustice in his court-martial, because he was not provided a chance to speak in his behalf at his trial. 23. A letter from the Adjutant General, dated 15 August 1965, shows the applicant was notified that the ABCMR determined that insufficient evidence had been presented to indicate a probable material error or injustice, and denied his application for the correction. The letter further shows, that in the absence of new and material evidence tending to show the existence of error or injustice in the military records, further consideration by the Board was not contemplated. 24. A DD Form 149, dated 7 May 1975, shows the applicant requested his UOTHC discharge be changed to honorable. He stated that at the time of his service, he was told that he could not adjust to military life. He believed the records to be unjust because of the amount of time that had elapsed. 25. A letter from the Executive Secretary, ABCMR, dated 12 August 1975, shows the applicant was notified in regards to his request for reconsideration of his application for the correction of his records. The letter further shows his records revealed: a. The applicant’s case was denied by the ADRB on 28 August 1962. b. He was previously informed that his original application was reviewed by the ABCMR that resulted in a unanimous decision that there was insufficient evidence of material error or an injustice to warrant a formal hearing, and the application was denied by the Board on 11 August 1965. c. Favorable action on any such request for reconsideration must be based upon the submission of new material evidence of such substance and materiality as might reasonably offer a basis for the reversal of the original decision by the Board. d. His recent application was evaluated and it was determined that the criteria outlined in the preceding paragraph had not been satisfied, and therefore, the original decision of the Board was sustained. e. In the absence of compelling new evidence of error or an injustice, no further action may be taken in the case by the ABCMR. 26. A letter from the Executive Secretary, ABCMR, dated 27 September 1977, shows the applicant was notified in regards to his inquiry regarding further consideration of his application for a change in character in his discharge. The letter further shows: a. He was informed that his case was further examined pursuant to recent changes to AR 15-185 (ABCMR), the regulation that governs the operation of the Board. b. Following the review, the Board’s staff determined that no evidence or other matter was submitted which was not previously considered by the Board, and consequently there was no basis for his resubmission of the case to the Board. c. In consideration of the foregoing, and in the absence of any new evidence or other matter tending to show an error or injustice in the character of the discharge, no further action was contemplated in the case. 27. A DD Form 149, dated 2 August 2000, shows the applicant requested his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. He stated that racial issues with reference to a lot of bias for the colored Soldiers at the time, and that had he been given a chance, he would have been okay. He provided no supporting documents other than the fact that his life had been on square one ever since he was released from duty. He never paid much attention to the character of his discharge until he wanted to change jobs. He could not get hired after being asked for a copy of his discharge. 28. In Docket Number AR2000045488 on 18 January 2001 the ABCMR determined, in part, that: a. The applicant failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the requirement to justify the correction of his military record was in error or unjust, and the administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights. b. The was no evidence of record to demonstrate the applicant was the victim of a racial prejudice. c. There was no basis for the Board to grant the applicant’s request. 29. On 1 February 2001, the ABCMR notified the applicant of the Board’s denial of his application. He was informed the decision was final, and that he may request a reconsideration only if he can provide newly discovered relevant evidence that was not available to the Board when it denied the application. 30. A DD Form 149, dated 2 February 2012, shows the applicant requested his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions. He stated that during the time spent in the military and the geographical section of the country he was stationed, racism was very much alive and well. He thought that as a “northern man of color” who could articulate his thoughts, he was considered a troublemaker. Not one non-commissioned officer (NCO) was called to present the character of his service, and the officers who knew him were split 180 degrees on his value to the Army depending on who one spoke with. He was a good Soldier but one who probably would have flourished if he had been stationed in a different part of the country. He has been trying to right this wrong since the 1960s when he was denied employment because of the character of his service. 31. On 16 March 2012, the ABCMR notified the applicant his recent application was accepted as a request for reconsideration of ABCMR Docket Number AR2000045488, which was considered on 18 January 2001. The applicant was further informed that: a. Paragraph 2-15b of AR 15-185 governs the requests for reconsideration. It provides for an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within one year of the ABCMR’s original decision and it has not been previously reconsidered. b. The ABCMR staff reviewed the applicant’s request for reconsideration and determined the request was not received within the one year of the original decision. As a result, the request for reconsideration did not meet the criteria outlined, and the request was returned to the applicant without further action. c. The ABCMR will not consider any further requests for reconsideration of this matter, however, he was informed of his option to seek relief in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. d. The local office of was furnished a copy of the ABCMR decision letter. 32. In a cover letter, dated 12 March 2013, an attorney at law, stated: * since 1960, the applicant applied several times for the correction of his military record which characterized his discharge as OTHC * in February 2012, the applicant finally received a transcript of his hearing held on 5 April 1960 * the record shows it is apparent the Army’s decision to discharge the applicant under OTHC was in error and unjust * a new DD Form 149, dated 12 March 2013, was provided with the cover letter 33. A DD Form 149, dated 12 March 2013, completed by the aforementioned, shows the applicant requested his character of his UOTHC discharge be upgraded to honorable. A brief in support of this application, with the reasons why the determined character of discharge was unjust, would be sent under a separate cover. The Board should consider this application because the applicant did not receive a transcript of his hearing until February 2012. 34. In a cover letter, dated 25 March 2013, the aforementioned attorney at law, stated in this claim that: * the applicant will show the Army Board of Officers errantly and unjustly separated him in 1960. In relief, he seeks an upgrade of his discharge under less than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge * the application is properly before the ABCMR since the applicant received a copy of his military records and the hearing transcript in January 2012 * the records provide discovery of his claim of an errant and unjust separation * this renewed application is timely filed since the discovery was 14 months ago 35. Counsel’s 14-page brief, dated 18 March 2015, shows: a. Counsel stated, in part, the applicant was immature when he enlisted in the Army. He that encountered commanding officers who provided structure, and he earned their respect for hard work. He excelled, but when he encountered a commanding officer, who threatened him, he could no longer thrive and excel. After a few violations, spread over 10 months, he was subjected to a discharge hearing for minor allegations. The outcome of the hearing was enormous in its consequences. He repeatedly tried to correct his military record, but the Army would not provide him those records so he could mount his defense. The records were finally produced in January 2012. His determination to correct the injustice done to him is alive today as it was the day he was discharged. This new application would demonstrate that the applicant was entitled to an upgrade to an Honorable Discharge. b. Counsel argued, in part, that the upgrade to an Honorable Discharge was warranted because army regulations required evidence of discreditable conduct or a pattern of shirking for discharge. The hearing transcript revealed the sworn testimony used against the applicant unjustly and errantly led to his discharge. The testimony is not filled with concrete examples of discreditable conduct or shirking. What the hearing board did not hear, was the alleged threat by the applicant’s commanding officer, Lieutenant that he would beat him with a rubber hose. The Board never had the opportunity to pursue that line of questioning due to the fault of the applicant’s counsel at the time who advised him not to raise the issue. Sergeant testified the applicant was given a job that did not work out, but admitted the applicant had no knowledge of the job, which is a plausible reason for failure, and not attributable to discreditable conduct or shirking. c. Counsel concluded, in part, that the applicant received discharge papers noting the separation as less than honorable conditions, and as a result of this errant and unfair discharge, he suffered a lifetime of shame, menial employment and economic hardship. Further, the Board of Officers failed to take the excellent ratings he received under other commanding officers, and testimony of two commanding officers into consideration. The discharge was unjust because of the long term effects and consequences it had on the applicant’s life. The injustice continued when the Army refused to provide the applicant with his military records needed to state his case accurately to the ABCMR. The applicant should be given an Honorable Discharge in order to correct wrong and injustice. 36. On 16 April 2013, the ABCMR notified the applicant his recent application for reconsideration of Docket Number AR20000045488 was considered on 18 January 2001. The applicant was further informed that: a. Paragraph 2-15b of AR 15-185 governs the requests for reconsideration. It provides for an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within one year of the ABCMR’s original decision and it has not been previously reconsidered. b. The ABCMR records showed he previously had requested reconsideration of the case, and which was acted upon in ABCMR Docket Number AR20120004018 on 16 March 2012. The decision on the request for reconsideration was the final administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Army. He was further informed, that there was no further action contemplated by the ABCMR since he was not eligible for further reconsideration by the Board. Therefore, the ABCMR returned the request to the applicant without action. c. The ABCMR will not consider any further requests for reconsideration of this matter. However, he was informed of his option to seek relief in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. d. A copy of the letter was furnished to his counsel, 37. A psychological evaluation, dated 21 July 2015, conducted by a clinical psychologist, shows in part, that the applicant initiated the evaluation to aid in obtaining an Honorable Discharge. The exam found the applicant’s appearance and speech appropriate, memory and intellect good, with no psychosis. He has a history of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as depression and anxiety. He has been prescribed antidepressants to treat his depression and anxiety by products of PTSD. He reported his onset of his depression coincided with taking over his platoon. a. He reported that he holds no animosity towards the two officers who facilitated his discharge, but only seeks to clear his name, and to be honorably discharged. He said, his country did more to hurt him than any other country could have done. His discharge not only caused him not to be able to make a living wage, but caused depression, feelings of despair and the abuse of alcohol and street drugs. He reported that believes race played a part in his run-ins with the two officers evidenced by the fact he had prior positive relations with other officers. b. Bias and personality issues could have played a major part in his dismissal. Another issue that needed to be considered, was the fact that if the applicant was such a problem, why was he not psychologically evaluated and treated. If he was not treatable, then he was due a medical discharge. In reviewing his medial record and interviewing him, it appeared there was enough evidence to suggest that a bias and an improper discharge could be a factor in his dismissal. As a result of his discharge, he suffered emotionally, socially, financially experiencing self-worth problems causing depression, anxiety and substance abuse problems. It was as likely as not that his current disability resulted from the precipitating event with taking charge of the platoon. 38. A DD Form 149, dated 1 September 2015, shows the applicant requested his UOTHC discharge be characterized as general under honorable conditions. He believed there was new relevant material evidence for his PTSD and related conditions based on the 2014 DoD PTSD and related conditions upgrade memo. 39. An ARBA clinical psychologist advisory opinion, dated 22 December 2015, shows the applicant alleged his PTSD was a catalyst to his misconduct which resulted in his discharge. The advising psychologist found the applicant’s post-service medical record dated July 2015 supported a diagnosis of PTSD, which may have as likely as not resulted from the precipitating event of an officer taking charge of the platoon, referring to instances of racism. PTSD may be concluded to have existed during the applicant’s time in service, and the applicant’s PTSD could have contributed to him missing work formation, being absent without leave (AWOL), and failure to go to the appointed place of duty. However, his PTSD was unlikely to have contributed to his established pattern of showing failure to pay debts, and unlikely to have contributed to his more egregious behavior of theft. Even if PTSD was assumed to have existed at the time of misconduct, it should be carefully weighed against the severity of his misconduct, with more egregious behavior not necessarily mitigated by the presence of PTSD. 40. The ABCMR considered the applicant’s request for reconsideration of an upgrade to his discharge in Docket Number AR20150015725 on 12 January 2016. The Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade. 41. On 14 January 2016, the ABCMR notified the applicant his application requesting reconsideration of Docket Number AR2000045488 was considered on 12 January 2016. The applicant was informed that the Board denied his request, and that the decision in his case was final. 42. On 15 March 2021, the ARBA case management division requested additional medical documents, from the applicant, that support his PTSD and other mental health issues indicated on his current application. The applicant did not respond. 43. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. The applicant asserts his mental abuse and mental health problems contributed to his discharge. However, he did not provide any additional medical documentation beyond the records he submitted in his 2015 application that documented his PTSD diagnosis. a. His service record indicates a neuropsychiatric examination occurred on 14 February 1960. The psychiatrist noted the applicant had trouble with authority prior to his military service. He left school at age 16 and ran away from home for more than 2 years. He had difficulty maintaining employment prior to his enlistment. He did not meet diagnostic criteria for any psychiatric conditions. b. A review of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Joint Legacy Viewer indicates the applicant has not been evaluated or treated in the VA system. He does not have a service connected disability rating. There is documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. He met retention standards at the time of his discharge. PTSD is considered a mitigating factor missing formation, AWOL, and failure to report. However, PTSD is not a mitigating factor for failure to pay debts and theft. The ARBA Medical Advisor concurs with previous medical advisory. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to fully and fairly consider this case without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's PTSD claim and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the medical advising official regarding his most serious misconduct (failure to pay debts and theft) not being mitigated by PTSD. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 6635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness), which was in effect at the time, set the policy for an administrative separation for unfitness. Paragraph 3 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness when their records were characterized by one or more of the following reasons, which the regulation prescribed an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge. * frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities * sexual perversion * drug addiction * established pattern of shirking * established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts 3. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), which was in effect at the time, set the policy for separation of enlisted personnel a. Paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 4. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. 6. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request for the correction of a military record. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210005950 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1