PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      .

	BOARD DATE:           26 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031576

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 reconsideration of his request to upgrade his 1980 under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is mentally slow and had and still has great difficulty learning things.  He reports that he was recycled several times before he finally completed basic training and that the same situation was occurring in Advanced Individual Training (AIT).  This situation prompted him to go AWOL when he was unable to get assistance from the military for a less drastic means to be released from the service.

4.  The Memorandum of Consideration reflecting the Board’s 29 January 1997 review of the applicant’s request is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.

5.  The applicant submits evidence of a post-service career as a building security guard for Wells Fargo.  He has submitted letters of appreciation from the firms for which he provided contract services.  These letters describe him as being always polite, courteous, reliable, and helpful.  He also submits a letter from his employer that describes him as a reliable, dedicated and loyal employee.  The Board has not previously considered either this evidence or the argument of limited capacity to serve.

6.  The applicant’s record shows that although he completed high school his entire education was through the “educable mentally retarded program”.  His Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores placed him in the lower 16th percentile with skills and aptitude testing in the lower 1/3rd for all categories 

7.  The applicant’s service records indicate that he was recycled during basic training at least three times and that he was proposed for recycling in AIT at the time he went AWOL the second time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-209, 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 and disorders of intelligence.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings based upon the disciplinary infractions were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge was commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  However, in light of the applicant’s low mental capabilities, poor skills and aptitude test scores and his demonstrated limited ability to successfully complete basic training and AIT, the discharge is too harsh.  It would have been more appropriate to have processed the applicant for discharge for unsuitability due to inaptitude. 

3.  In balancing the applicant’s lost time, due to AWOL, and his limited creditable service against his limited ability the Board does not believe it is appropriate to afford the applicant a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to general under honorable conditions.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a.  by voiding the under other than honorable conditions discharge for the individual concerned, dated 25 February 1980;

b.  by showing that he was separated from the service on 25 February 1980 with an general discharge due to secretarial authority; and,

c.  by issuing to him a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 25 February 1980, in lieu of the UOTHC Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___SK___  ________  __KAK__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ___CLG_____  DENY APPLICATION

		__Stanley Kelley____________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031576	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20000426	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	110.02	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.