PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028737

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he suffers from cerebral palsy, and his discharge was unjust because his physical condition was not known when he was on active duty. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 18 November 1963 and assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for training.

5.  A 16 December 1963 report of mental status indicates that the applicant was mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The examining physician stated that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate, and went on to add that the applicant might be able to make a better adjustment to Army life and to perform effectively; however, should that not be the case, consideration of administrative separation was recommended.

6.  On 17 January 1964 the applicant acknowledged that he had been notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge under Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability.  He waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive. 

7.  The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability.  That official stated that the applicant had been unable to adjust to the requirements of a soldier, that he had been counseled by the first sergeant, transferred from the 1st to the 4th platoon, and counseled by an NCO about his lack of learning.  The applicant stated that he was trying very hard.  The doctor recommended that he be given additional help and instruction.  The applicant’s commanding officer went on to say that he had counseled the applicant, and it appeared that the applicant lacked the knowledge, but that he was trying to be a soldier.  He stated that he counseled the applicant again about his poor firing and took him off the firing range to avoid injury to himself or someone else.  He recommended that the applicant be discharged for inaptitude in that he considered him emotionally unfit for active duty.  His efficiency was unsatisfactory and he could not adjust to military life.

8.  Statements from the applicant’s commanding officer, first sergeant, platoon sergeant, and a statement from the officer in charge of a firing range, revealed that the applicant had a low score on his physical fitness test, could not keep in step while marching, was extremely clumsy in doing the manual of arms, and had been pulled out of formation on several occasions.  He could not be put on guard duty because of his bad appearance and his lack of knowledge of general orders. His progress on the rifle range was unsatisfactory, and he was removed from rifle marksmanship firing in the interest of safety.  He had problems with simple tasks, like making his bed.  He was given additional instruction and help; however, he was slow in learning and required constant supervision.  His boots were always dirty, and he was always the last man to fall out in any company formation, falling out on two occasions with his boots in his hand.  While on the firing range he constantly pointed his loaded weapon in all directions.  

9.  In a second report of mental status evaluation, the examining physician stated that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate.  He stated that it appeared that almost all of the applicant’s problems were those of physical coordination, and psychiatric factors did not seem to be of significant importance. 

10.  In a 20 January 1964 field grade officer’s evaluation report, the battalion commander stated that the applicant’s potential to perform as a soldier was poor; his ability to tolerate authority and discipline, poor; his potential for rehabilitation poor; and his ability to adjust to cadre and officers, poor.  He stated that the applicant had the academic ability to be an outstanding soldier; however, he appeared to suffer from a lack of coordination.  His speech and movements were extremely slow.  He stated that he believed the applicant to be of no value to the military service.

11.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a general discharge.  He was discharged on 7 February 1964 under honorable conditions.  He had 2 months and 20 days of service.

12.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and
homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s commanding officer and his NCO’s stated that the applicant did not have the aptitude for military life.  His commanding officer also stated that the applicant did state that he was trying.  A physician and the applicant’s battalion commander both stated that the applicant’s problems appeared to be a lack of coordination.

2.  Whereas the Board is reluctant to question the decision made over 30 years ago, it would appear that the applicant’s characterization of his service as “under honorable conditions” is unfair and unjust.  He was not a troublemaker or a shirker.  The applicant simply did not have the aptitude and the necessary physical coordination for military life. 

3.  Consequently, in all fairness to the applicant, his discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was honorably discharged from the Army on 7 February 1964.  

BOARD VOTE:  

___lls___  ___aao__  ___ra___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028787	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  177	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.