APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT STATES: He feels he should have been given a medical discharge. His medical problems affected his judgment. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 July 1972. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic). On 8 September 1972 and 22 January 1973, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for breaking restriction and failing to report, respectively. The applicant was hospitalized for a head injury from 23 February - 8 March 1973. He underwent surgery to repair a skull fracture. The injury was in line of duty. The applicant later complained of chronic headaches with exertion, and he was eventually given a temporary profile for running or strenuous physical activity; no handling of heavy materials, to include weapons; no overhead work; no push-ups or pull-ups. Between May 1973 and February 1974, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15 on three separate occasions for failure to report and being absent without leave (AWOL), AWOL, and disobeying a lawful order. On 8 April 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On his Report of Medical History, the applicant checked “head injury” but made no mention of any medical complaints. In a memorandum dated 25 April 1974, his commander noted the applicant was unwilling to accept authority or simple responsibility for personal hygiene and barracks cleanliness and he used his profile only when it suited him (for example, he participated in rappelling and company A&R (athletics and recreation). On 29 April 1974, his commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsuitability. On 29 April 1974, the applicant acknowledged the separation action, waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before such a board and representation by counsel. He made no statement on his own behalf. On 2 May 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he receive a general discharge. On 14 May 1974, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had 42 days of lost time. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. At the time, Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating an individual for unsuitability when it was clearly established that it was unlikely that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. The applicant was examined by the VA in January 1980. The examiner noted in the applicant’s medical history “He did have a neurosurgical procedure but denies any neurologic deficit after the operation. He did reasonably well until about two or three months ago when he had two blackout spells within a short period of time.” 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. 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 aforementioned requirement. 2. The applicant's record of disciplinary infractions began before he received his injury. 3. 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. He waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers. His record of disciplinary actions during that term of enlistment does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable. 4. The applicant made no mention of health problems on his Report of Medical History. The VA documentation he submits as evidence states he did not experience any problems until sometime in 1979, five years after his discharge. 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 DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director