PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           11 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034280

	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.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be changed to a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he did not receive a proper discharge medical examination.  If he had had the conditions (sleepwalking and low intelligence) that they said he had, it would have been impossible for him to complete basic training.  An explosion caused him dizziness, damage and whistling in his ears, and a nerve problem, which in turn caused him to appear to be not very intelligent because he could not understand what was being said to him.  He provides five affidavits (one affidavit signed by 26 people) from people who knew him before he entered the Army who state he never walked in his sleep before entering the Army.  

4.  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973.  The information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.

5.  On 6 November 1950, the applicant completed an induction physical examination and was found qualified for induction.  He entered active duty on    15 February 1951.  

6.  Between March and October 1951, the applicant was treated for painful feet and back pain approximately 15 times and for an eye condition (mild conjunctivitis) once. 

7.  On 1 October 1951, the applicant was admitted to an Army hospital in Japan after he had been observed walking in his sleep and then sleeping on a road.  

8.  On 1 and 2 October 1951, the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric evaluation.  He was diagnosed as having a severe mental deficiency.  No evidence of organic brain disease was found and a neurological examination was normal.  He was found to be so far free from mental defects, disease or derangement as to be able to understand any board proceedings contemplated and to have no mental or physical disease or defect which would warrant disposition through medical channels.

9.  On 3 November 1951, separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability was initiated.  The commander cited as reasons for this action to be the many occasions the applicant was found walking in his sleep, a show of fear of talking to strangers, sobbing on several occasions and repeating an incoherent statement over and over during interviews.  The commander noted the applicant had no record of courts-martial or company punishment.  A board convened on 24 November 1951 to determine whether the applicant should be discharged.  The applicant appeared but elected to remain silent.  The board recommended that he be discharged for unsuitability -- character and behavior disorder, mental deficiency and apathy -- and given a general discharge.  On 1 December 1951, the appropriate approval authority approved the findings and recommendation.  

10.  On 2 January 1952, the applicant completed a separation physical examination.  He was found qualified for military service (qualified for separation). 

11.  On 3 January 1952. the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability.  He had completed 10 months and 19 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

12.  At the time, Army Regulation 615-369 governed the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability.  Discharge for unsuitability would be effected when it was determined that an individual was unsuitable for further military service because of any one of several reasons, including character and behavior disorders (including immaturity reactions such as dependency reaction or aggressive reaction), mental deficiency or apathy.  An individual discharged for inaptitude or unsuitability would be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
It also stated that no intelligence score could be arbitrarily stated as a mandatory requirement for separation due to mental deficiency.  The criterion was performance of duty.  Many men rendered satisfactory service with a relatively low intelligence score while others were unable to adjust to military duties even though scoring within minimum requirements.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation that governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Article 15.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty. 

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, retention and separation.  Chapter 2, which concerns medical standards for enlistment or induction, paragraph 2-32 -- personality, behavior, or academic skills disorders -- states that behavior problems including but not limited to conditions such as authenticated evidence of functional enuresis or sleepwalking is a cause for rejection.  Chapter 3, which concerns medical fitness standards for retention and separation, does not list sleepwalking as a cause for referral to a medical evaluation board.  Paragraph 3-35 – personality, sexual, or factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified; psychoactive disorders – state that these conditions may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

16.  In 1988, the applicant applied to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge from general to fully honorable.  On 10 October 1990, the Board determined that he had not submitted his application within the time required.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant did not meet the regulatory criteria for referral to a medical evaluation board with possible subsequent entitlement to a medical discharge.  

2.  Low mental intelligence was and is not a cause for automatic rejection for enlistment or induction (and even less so during a period of war) or a reason for automatic separation.  The Board concludes the applicant could have done very well during basic training despite any mental deficiency due to the very structured nature of a military training environment and yet not have done well during the looser structure at a permanent party assignment.

3.  While sleepwalking would have been a cause for rejection for induction, this condition was not noted at the time the applicant took his induction physical examination.  In fact, he denies it existed so there was no reason for rejection.  Unless the applicant provides evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes it is not reasonable to contend that his command falsely claimed he walked in his sleep.  The commander had ample enough other reasons to initiate separation action on him for unsuitability.  

4.  The Board is not convinced by the applicant’s contention that an explosion caused him dizziness, damage and whistling in his ears, and a nerve problem, which in turn caused him to appear to be not very intelligent because he could not understand what was being said to him.  The evidence of record shows that he was not averse to going on sick call and the Board believes that if he had had a hearing problem he would have gone on sick call for that problem.

5.  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.  The regulation mandated for a characterization of separation of general under honorable conditions.

6.  Notwithstanding the above and the findings of the Board on 10 October 1990, the Board now finds that an injustice would occur if the applicant’s character of service is not upgraded to fully honorable.  Current standards provide that the honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Even where there have been infractions of discipline, to include convictions by courts-martial, a soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had no    courts-martial or company punishments.  While his performance of duty may not have been up to fully acceptable standards, the Board concludes it was through lack of ability, not through lack of trying.  As such, he should not be denied a fully honorable discharge.

7.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 3 January 1952.

2.  That the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 3 January 1952, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by him.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  __jma___  __cjp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034280	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000511	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19520103	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-369 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.