PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            21 November 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000046159

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas A. Paqan		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. 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 in effect, that her undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant states in effect, that she was mentally unable to meet the requirements of her military occupational specialty (MOS).  She encountered problems during training when she was learning to give shots.  She could not tolerate the blood.  Later she had problems dealing with severely injured and burned soldiers.  She went absent without leave (AWOL) from her unit after seeing a severely burned soldier.  It was after this that she began to have nightmares and she also began to drink heavily.  When she enlisted, her recruiter told her that she could receive “training and assignment in an office position.”  Later she was told that she could be guaranteed nothing that was not in writing.  She submits a statement in support of her request.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 30 September 1968, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and training in Army Career Group 91, Medical Care and Treatment.  She was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama for basic training.  Her conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent.  On 30 November 1968, she was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas for advanced training.

5.  On 4 February 1969, a DA Form 1049 (Personnel Action) shows that the Chief, Academic Standards Section, Training Division requested that the applicant be transferred or eliminated from the present class.  The reason cited was “undesirable for medical MOS.”  Her academic scores were 85, 74, and 88.  Her proficiency scores were 76 and 91.  On an unknown date, the request was approved.  She was then removed from the course and was not awarded an MOS.

6.  On 20 February 1969, the applicant was referred to the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service (MHCS) for evaluation regarding a possible change of MOS because she was unable to give injections during medical training.  The MHCS determined that she showed no avert “psychopathology” and that except for the problem mentioned above, she appeared fairly well adjusted and that she would probably be best utilized in a non-medical field.  

7.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant’s unit took any measures to assist the applicant in dealing with her problems to include the MHCS’ recommendation to reassign her for training in a non-medical field.

8.  On 25 April 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant 
for being AWOL from 18-20 April 1969.  Her punishment included forfeiture of 
1 month’s pay ($56.00).
9.  On 15 May 1969, she was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 28 April-2 May 1969 and for disobeying a lawful command on 16 April 1969. Her sentence included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 4 months. 

10.  On 27 May 1969, the applicant underwent another psychiatric evaluation and was found to have no psychiatric disease.  She was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and of adhering to the right.  She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative disposition deemed appropriate by her command.  

11.  On 29 May 1969, the applicant’s commander notified her that she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD. 

12.  On 29 May 1969, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  She acknowledged that she had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to her.  She stated that she understood the consequences of receiving a UD.  She also waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  She did not submit a statement in her own behalf.

13.  On 16 June 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  

14.  On 23 June 1969, she was discharged.  She had completed 8 months and 
18 days of active military service and she had a total of 6 days lost time due to being AWOL.

15.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of her discharge.  

16.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.

2.  The Board concludes that there is no evidence to show that the applicant’s unit took appropriate measures to assist her in dealing with her inability to adjust to training in the medical field to include reclassification to a non-medical field.

3.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the applicant’s mental status, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by changing her characterization of service to a GD. However, the reason for discharge should not be changed. 

4.  The Board notes that the applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct.  Therefore, her overall quality of service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing that the UD the individual concerned received on 
23 June 1969 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a general discharge by reason of unfitness on 23 June 1969; and

c.	by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate 
from the RA, dated 23 June 1969, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by her.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___TAP _  ___TEO_  ___RWQ_ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_________Thomas A. Paqan_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046159	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001121	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690623	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(PARTIAL GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3		
4.		
5.		

The Board noted the applicant’s academic record, her psychological evaluation, and the basis for her removal from training in the medical career field and concluded that she was unsuitable for military service in the medical field. 

 His inability to adapt to military life and his associated misconduct was mitigated by his mental status at the time that he served.