MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:          6 May 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083412

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		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 general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told he would receive a medical discharge, under honorable conditions.  He states, he was placed in a six month leave status to recuperate and was supposed to report back to duty.  He further states, his leave was based on being beat up on base at Fort Lewis, Washington. He contends that another (cook) soldier came into his day room and choked him. He adds, that he was given a rating of 6A and would not have to go back through basic training again.  He states, that he was also told if he chose not to return, he would be given a medical discharge, under honorable conditions.  He adds he did not report back.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are incomplete.  

The applicant was inducted into the Army on 23 May 1969.  His DA Form 
20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he completed basic combat training 
and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for advanced individual training (AIT).  On 17 September 1969, he completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty 63A10 (Mechanical Maintenance Helper) and assigned to duty.

On 14 January 1970, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing 
to go to his appointed place of duty, wrongfully communicating a threat to a fellow soldier and being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 to 30 December 1969 and from 2 to 5 January 1970.  His sentence included reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 30 days, suspended for 90 days.  

On 6 May 1970, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability with a general discharge, under honorable conditions.  The reason for his proposed action was due to the applicant’s inability to adjust to military life.  The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, and was informed of the impact of a less than fully honorable discharge.  He elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  

The applicant stated, in his accompanying letter, that his time in the Army 
and at Fort Lewis, Washington, was one of the worst experiences of his life. He adds, he did work hard, but was treated as if he was still in basic training.  He contends others always provided the opinion that he was goofing off.  He adds that he tried to get along with everyone, but admits to losing his cool, under the circumstances, as would anyone who had that much pressure built up.    

On 5 May 1970, the applicant underwent a medical examination that gave him a physical profile of 111111 and cleared him for separation.  
An 13 May 1970, the applicant’s psychiatric examination produced a diagnosis of emotional immaturity reaction, moderate, chronic, as manifested by his inability to adjust to military life, low stress tolerance, tendency toward impulsive behavior and the use of poor judgment.  The report found no disqualifying mental or physical defects requiring processing through medical channels.  The applicant was considered to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He could understand and participate in separation processing and any further rehabilitation was expected to be ineffective.  Administrative separation was recommended.

On 25 May 1970, his intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for a GD, under honorable conditions.  On 9 June 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation, waived rehabilitation requirements and directed that he be issued a GD Certificate. 

On 16 June 1970, the applicant was separated with an GD under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  He had 1 year and 20 days of creditable service.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

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

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members were subject to separation for unsuitability for inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, 
and inability to expend effort constructively, alcoholism, and enuresis.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service was normally appropriate.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with regulations applicable at the time with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

2.  The Board found that the applicant's contention that his command gave him the option of returning to his command after being authorized leave for 60 days is unsupported.  The Board notes that the applicant’s admission that he was supposed to report back to his unit clearly establishes that his command did not approve or issue discharge orders prior to him going on leave.
 
3.  The Board, also notes that there is no evidence in the applicant’s military records, nor does he provide any evidence that he was suffering from a medical condition which  rendered him unfit to remain on active duty.  

4.  Therefore, the Board finds, that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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 this 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

____FNE   ___LEM _  ___LCB _  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083412	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	US W/GD UNDER HON CONDITIONS	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980.06.16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	NON-ADJUST MIL LIFE	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	AR144.4000	
2.	AR144.0135	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.