PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048990

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated from the service for a medical condition due to his failure to conform to military standards.  Since his discharge was purely due to this medical condition and not due to any conduct related problems he believes he should have been released with an HD.   

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 2 August 1960 he was inducted into the Army of the United States for two years and that he was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky to attend basic training.

5.  On 6 October 1960, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on the recommendation of his commander.  The cited reasons for the referral were that the applicant was emotionally immature, did not have the capability to keep up with his contemporaries during training, and was extremely slow in grasping the basic fundamentals of basic training.

6.  The psychiatrist who conducted the mental status evaluation found no disqualifying medical condition that would warrant processing the applicant through medical channels.  However, he did diagnose the applicant with an inadequate personality and stated that the applicant had only completed eight years of school, never held a steady job, and he found it doubtful that the applicant could adjust to military life.  He finally recommended that the applicant be considered for separation processing under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  

7.  On 7 October 1960, the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation action, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, by reason of unsuitability, and he recommended a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s nervousness and immaturity as the reasons for taking the action.  He commented that the applicant had a pleasing personality and he enjoyed interviewing him but he found him very nervous and consequently concluded he would be unable to produce under pressure.  He also indicated that the applicant had no record of court-martial or company punishment and that there were no conduct related problems associated with the action. 

8.  On 7 October 1960, the applicant completed a waiver of his rights statement in connection with the administrative discharge action.  He confirmed that he had been notified of the basis for the contemplated separation action against him and its effects.  He further waived his right to counsel; to a hearing by a board of officers; and he elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.  

9.  Two intermediate commanders interviewed the applicant in connection with the separation action and both commented that he was neat in appearance and personable.  However, they both found that his extreme nervousness made it improbable he could absorb and complete basic training and recommended approval of his separation.  

10.  On 26 October 1960, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation for unsuitability and directed that he receive a GD.  Accordingly, on 
31 October 1960, the applicant was discharged after completing just 2 months and 29 days of active military service.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, or homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could receive either an HD or GD.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, the Board finds that the characterization of his service was too harsh.  

2.  As evidenced by the statements made by the applicant’s unit commander and intermediate level commanders at the time, there was no misconduct connected with the discharge action.  In fact, they all affirmed that he was not a disciplinary problem, commented on his neat appearance, and indicated that he was very personable during the separation interviews.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was recommended solely on the basis of his extreme nervousness, which prevented him from performing under pressure and rendered him incapable of performing the tasks necessary to successfully complete basic training. 

4.  In the opinion of the Board, the discharge is inequitable because the applicant’s excellent personal conduct more than sufficiently mitigates his performance related problems.  Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable.

5.  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 received an HD on 31 October 1960, in lieu of the GD of the same date he now holds.  

BOARD VOTE:  

___sk___  ___tsk___  __rvo ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048990	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1960/10/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209	
DISCHARGE REASON	Inaptitude	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.