MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080490

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged because a pre-existing condition was aggravated by the period of service and that he should have had a medical discharge.  He was ridiculed and harassed because of a condition over which he had no control.

In a letter to a United States Senator, he relates that he had trouble with bed-wetting most of his life, but at the time he entered the service it had not occurred for quite some time.  When it occurred during basic training, he thought it was due to the stress and that when he reached a permanent duty station he would be okay.  When he had an occurrence after several months he tried to hide it, but could not.  He sought help from his platoon leader, but that officer did not understand and made the problem common knowledge.  In fact, the platoon leader ridiculed him at a company formation.  His situation became a company joke.  A statement in his record to the effect that, while in the field, he was issued a clean sleeping bag on a daily basis, is false.  In truth, he had to dry it himself, as best he could.  This led to another embarrassment.  He was using the heat from a generator to dry his sleeping bag.  The sleeping bag got caught in the machinery and caused the generator to shut down.  Thereafter, he was subjected to more ridicule as the "Generator Boy."  A congressional inquiry caused an Inspector General's investigation, which led to his discharge. 

He submits copies of documents from his Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability cases and other medical records.  The Social Security system found that, due to significant weight gain and arthritic knees, he was 100 percent disabled as of 1 April 1995.  He was also diagnosed with diabetes in 1995.  Mental health records show that, in August and November 1995, he was struggling with recurrent depression.  

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

He was 18 years old and had completed 9 years of education when he voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 February 1963. 

The applicant's enlistment medical examination report notes that he reported a previous history (5 years earlier) of possible tuberculosis.  He reported that his doctor had later pronounced this cured.  Chest X-rays later provided a diagnosis of probable granuloma (a mass or nodule of inflamed tissue).

He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 642.10 (Heavy Vehicle Driver).  He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 7 June 1963 for absence without leave (AWOL) for 3 days.  He was posted to Germany on 8 August 1963.    

There are numerous medical record entries concerning myriad complaints, including enuresis.  These include 15 October and 22 November 1963 medical visits at which the applicant expressed the desire to be discharged for enuresis. At a 14 January 1964 psychiatric evaluation the applicant reported a lifelong history of bed wetting with many unsuccessful treatment attempts.  The applicant was oriented, rational and coherent, there was no suggestion of any psychosis.  The psychiatrist provided a diagnosis of immaturity with a symptomatic "habit" or reaction of enuresis.  This was considered to be not in the line of duty and to have existed prior to the entry into the service (EPTS).  Separation process under Army Regulation 632-208 was recommended since the applicant was not expected to develop into a satisfactory soldier.   

The report of a 29 January 1964 medical examination for separation noted the diagnosis of EPTS enuresis as a symptom of an immature personality and another diagnosis of probable granuloma.  Follow-up was recommended for the latter condition but the applicant had waived treatment.  He was found fit for separation (or retention) with a 1.1.1.1.1.1 physical profile.  

On 4 February 1964 his company commander recommended that the battalion commander authorize elimination from the service for unsuitability.  He wrote that, in addition to the bed wetting which made the applicant the butt of company jokes, the applicant perceived himself to have many other problems.  The company commander reported that the applicant, "…is still driving the ¼ ton, although his platoon sergeant and assistant platoon sergeant complain that he can't do anything right, has to be told many times to do something before it gets done…Every morning he approaches his platoon sergeant with a different problem usually based on guard duty, KP, prejudice, maintenance or any of a thousand different things.…Attempts to rehabilitate…have been to no avail…."  The company commander attached the report of psychiatric evaluation and  sworn statements from the platoon leader and two sergeants and recommended an honorable discharge.   

The battalion commander approved the elimination and directed that a general discharge be issued.

On 13 April 1964 the applicant was separated with a general discharge under Army Regulation 635-209.  He was assigned separation program number 262, which means unsuitability-enuresis.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 28 days of creditable service and had 3 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, 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, character and behavior disorders, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, and enuresis.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate based on the individual's record of service.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  Although the applicant's condition made him unsuitable for service, it was not physically disabling.  Furthermore, it had existed prior to his entry onto active duty and, notwithstanding his assertions, there is no evidence that it was aggravated by the period of service.  Additionally, the record shows that the applicant actively sought to be discharged based on enuresis.

3.  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.
 
4.  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

__RVO__  ___JPI __  ___ECP _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080490	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030612	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.