PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            24 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034100

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

3.  The applicant states in a letter that he submitted through his Congressman’s office that he is totally illiterate.  He is unable to read, write or to do arithmetic functions and he has never been able to do so due to severe brain damage that he sustained as a small child when he fell out of a second story window.  The only thing that he has successfully learned is how to write his name.  However, at the time of his enlistment he had learned to compensate fairly well.  Until this time only a few people are aware of his condition.  In March 1953, he received a special court-martial (SPCM) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and a few days later for breaking restriction.  The reason that he was not at his appointed place of duty was because he was unable to read the roster that was posted on the unit bulletin board.  He believes that his defense was inadequate.  He submits Congressional correspondence; a summarized record of trial; a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States); memoranda written in his own behalf, dated 21 March 1956, and 11 December 1958; character references from his brother, sister and his wife; and a clinical history sheet with entries dated August 1957 which tend to support his claims of a learning disability. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 24 September 1951, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United State) shows that he completed no service schools.  However, he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 
1745 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  His Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score was 15, Category IV.

5.  He served in the Korean War from March 1952-Januay 1953.  On 
18 September 1952, he was wounded as a result of action against enemy forces.

6.  On 21 March 1953, the applicant appeared before a SPCM with defense counsel and assistant defense counsel.  He was convicted by the SPCM of failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 1 March 1953, and for breaking restriction on 3 March 1953.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months.  He remained in confinement from 25 March-28 May 1953.  On
29 May 1953, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement was suspended. 

7.  Between 13 March-29 May 1953, he received training as an honor cadre.  Shortly after reporting, he complained of having personal problems and stated that the training was too difficult and that he was physically incapable of completing the training due to a head injury that he had received when he was a baby.  His command concluded that he was malingering and he had a belligerent attitude about receiving training.  He continued the training with minor infraction of training rules.  He was excused from some of the more strenuous training requirements at his own request, however, he completed the training.

8.  On 2 June 1953, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  “His neurologic examination was negative and indicated that he could read poorly but sufficiently to establish aphasia’s at the time.  He was found to have an inadequate personality, chronic, severe, manifested by asocial, inadequate immature patterns of adjustment, intellectual dullness, and somatization.”  “An EEG study was ordered to rule out the unlikely possibility of dysrhythmic cerebral process underlying his behavior in view of history of depressed frontal skull fracture birth injury.”  The results of this study are not contained in the available records.  The recommendation was that the applicant be considered for an administrative discharge if he continued to get into trouble. 

9.  On 30 June 1953, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being off post without a pass/not properly being signed out.  His punishment included 
14 days restriction.

10.  On an unknown date, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would meet on 7 October 1953 to determine his suitability for retention or discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.

11.  No counseling documents are available; however, a document dated
6 October 1953, shows that he declined further legal representation or to call witnesses, and that he would comply with the date and time of the board. 

12.  On 7 October 1953, the applicant appeared before the board of officers without counsel.  He again stated that he did not desire legal representation.  He also declined to make a statement in his own behalf.  The board proceedings revealed that his personal appearance had been unsatisfactory and that he had to be continuously reminded to get a haircut, shave and bathe.  He had also demonstrated a complete disregard for authority.  He had repeatedly disobeyed explicit orders of both his officers and noncommissioned officers.  He had driven his privately owned vehicle on and off post several times, when he had no driver’s license or post registration.  He had been repeatedly directed to appear at Reveille formation and he had consistently refused to do so.  

13.  The board unanimously found the applicant unfit for military service, due to unfitness, and recommended that he be discharged with a UD.

14.  On 12 October 1953, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 
615-368, by reason of unfitness.

15.  On 30 October 1953, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
1 year, 11 months and 12 days of creditable active service.  He also had 55 days lost time due to being in confinement.

16.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Purple Heart, the Korean Service Medal with two bronze service stars, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the United Nations Service Medal.

17.  A letter, dated 19 March 1956, from the Amherst H. Wilder Child Guidance Clinic, St. Paul, Minnesota indicates that the applicant’s principal referred him to that clinic in October 1948, at age 14, when he was in the seventh grade.  He displayed normal intelligence, but was unable to read.  When the clinic initially tested him to ascertain his reading ability he was determined to be reading on a level of the eighth month of first grade.  His spelling level (written) was at the second month of first grade, and his spelling level (oral) was at the seventh month of first grade.  

18.  He was again tested on 3 June 1949, prior to leaving the program for summer vacation.  His reading level had increased to the seventh month of third grade.  In the fall of 1949 when school started he attended a few sessions at the clinic, but did not resume intensive remedial reading and he had not reached the point of reading independently.

19.  On 27 June 1956, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

20.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unfit for further service by reason of habits or traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Under this regulation a UD was considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  The applicant has provided no evidence to demonstrate an error or injustice in the adjudication of his case.  He declined legal representation prior to the board of officer’s proceedings and again during the proceedings.  He was also given an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf to the board, but he declined.

3.  The applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for 
acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  However, the Board noted his low AFQT score, his marginal ability to read, and his psychological evaluation and concluded that his inadequate personality rendered him unfit to serve satisfactorily.  Therefore, his inability to adapt to military life and his associated misconduct was mitigated by his mental status, his level of competency and his combat service.

5.  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 his characterization of service to a general discharge (GD).  However, the reason for discharge should not be changed.

6.  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 
30 October 1953 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a GD on 30 October 1953; and

c.  by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the RA, dated 30 October 1953, in lieu of the 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:  

__gdp___  __clg___  _alr _____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		   __George D. Paxson__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034100	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000824	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19531030	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(PARTIAL GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.