MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            21 March 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064350

	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	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That due to his vision alone, he should have been put where he could be of service, instead of being given jobs he stood no chance at completing, or given an honorable discharge instead of being rode until he couldn’t take it and then just thrown out.  Further, he indicates he was only        17 years of age when he entered the Army.  He indicates that because of his “defective vision” he was unable to accomplish the tasks assigned to him and his supervisors thought he was lazy.  He indicates he was being physically and mentally abused, which caused him to absent himself without leave (AWOL).  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

On 28 November 1960, a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicates the applicant had a 2 under physical status E (eyes) for defective vision.  His distant vision was 20/30 corrected to 20/20. 

On 28 November 1960, at the age of seventeen, with a waiver for civil offenses and parental consent, the applicant enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 410 (Ammunition Handler).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3, effective 14 August 1961.

On 8 April 1961, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of being AWOL for the period 1 through 7 April 1961.  His sentence included hard labor without confinement for 30 days and forfeiture of $50 pay.

On 4 December 1961, he was issued nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice based on missing bed check and reveille on 3 and 4 December 1961.  His punishment was a verbal reprimand.

On 7 December 1961, he was issued NJP based on a uniform violation.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 3 January 1962, he was issued NJP based on disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment was extra duty for 14 days.

On 11 January 1962, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 8 December 1961, for being AWOL on       16 December 1961, and, for disobeying a lawful order on 8 December 1961.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 3 months, a forfeiture of $55 pay per month for 3 months and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 25 January 1962, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation. This examination indicates the applicant’s eyesight was 20/20 without correction.

On 29 January 1962, a psychiatric examination, which diagnosed him as having an antisocial personality, chronic, severe, EPTS (existed prior to service, recommended him for separation.

On 9 February 1962, the unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation from the military service under Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, based on his repeated violations of rules and regulations.  He recommended the applicant’s character of service be shown as undesirable.

On 13 February 1962, he acknowledged notification that the unit commander had submitted a request for his elimination from the service for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-208.  Further, he acknowledged and declined his opportunity of requesting counsel.  He waived a hearing of his case by a board of officers.  He did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 27 February 1962, the appropriate separation authority approved his separation for unfitness and directed that he receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 12 March 1962, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with authorities.  His Report of Separation indicates he had  1 year, 1 month and 21 days of creditable service and 55 days of lost time.

On 30 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally determined and an Undesirable Discharge Certificate issued.   

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator 1 under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators 2 and 3 indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.  Numerical designator 4 indicates that an individual has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator 4 does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.

Army Regulations provide that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  It provides that the honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 inappropriate.

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 applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has considered the applicant’s allegations; however, there is nothing in the available record to support them.  He has not shown he was punished and discharged because of his age or vision, or that he was physically and mentally abused.

4.  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 the preceding requirement.

5.  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

_jns____  _lds___    _jns___        DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064350	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020321	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.