MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            30 June 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019096

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 an honorable or medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature and was told what to do and when to do it.  He also states that he was unable to read or write fluently.  He further states that his dyslexia (an inability to read understandingly, due to a central lesion) hampered his abilities to perform the duties of his military occupation specialty (MOS) of 36C20 (lineman).  He goes on to state that due to his lack of training he was unable to readjust and fit into society.  He concludes by stating that he is a total mess due to his mental problems and skin cancer from Agent Orange.

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

The applicant entered active duty at the age of 17 on 29 August 1969 as a lineman.  He served in Vietnam from 5 March 1971 to 2 October 1971.

While serving in Vietnam, charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 September 1971 for being AWOL (28 days), disrespectful behavior toward a commissioned officer, treat with contempt his superior noncommissioned officer, and for communicating a threat toward his commissioned officer.

On 6 October 1971, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 7 October 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 24 October 1971.  He had a total of
2 years and 28 days of creditable service and 28 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review by this Board.

There is no evidence or indication in the applicant’s records to show that he was diagnosed with dyslexia during his enlistment. 

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

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted
personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges
have been preferred; submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member fit.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was young and immature,
unable to read or write fluently and that his dyslexia hampered his abilities to perform the duties of his MOS 36C20 (lineman); however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

6.  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

GDP____  AAO____  JPI______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019096	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990630	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711024	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.