MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 11 September 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001057751

         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
Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson
Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member
Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was unfit for military duty at the time of his induction and that he did not realize that he had a serious psychiatric problem
while on active duty. He also states that he has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and that he accepted responsibility for some of his actions; however, those actions were mitigated by the onset of his illness and his inability to fully grasp English, which confused and frustrated him. In support of his application he submits a copy his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and a copy of a statement of support from a medical doctor.

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

The applicant was administered an entrance examination on 14 November 1974 and his Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) indicated that he was qualified for enlistment with a 111111 physical profile. Item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) shows the entry “Does Not Speak English.”

He enlisted on 27 August 1975 as a light weapons infantryman.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 26 May 1976 for being disrespectful in language toward his noncommissioned officer, disobeying
a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer on two occasions, assault on three occasions, wrongfully communicating a threat to another soldier on two occasions, and for possession of marijuana.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 18 June 1976
and was found qualified for separation.




The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review.

On 16 July 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 23 July 1976. He had a total of
10 months and 27 days of creditable service.

The applicant provided a copy of a statement of support concerning his psychiatric condition. The statement indicated that the applicant was a psychiatric inpatient in 1987 and again in 1999, was considered psychotic during those periods, and that it would not be unreasonable to assume that he was suffering from mental illness during his period of service. The statement also indicated that the applicant did not speak English during that time, which could have aggravated any distress he was suffering, and that he should have received an honorable discharge.

Item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-Part II) shows that he completed his high school general education development (GED) in 1975 in the state of New York.

The applicant’s record contains a copy of a supportive statement which was provided by the applicant with his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). The applicant stated that he had many problems because he did not speak English, was told at the time of his enlistment that he would learn English, and that he went to school in the Army for 6 weeks; however, he did not learn English well enough to speak or understand the commands.

Item 35 (Record of Assignment) of his DA Form 2-1 shows that the applicant began his basic combat training (BCT) on 10 October 1975, 6 weeks after his enlistment.

The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on 8 June 1977. The ADRB did not find that the applicant’s alleged lack of English comprehension was supported, nor did it find evidence in the file to mitigate or excuse the applicant’s acts of indiscipline. On this basis, the ADRB determined that an upgrade was not warranted. On 21 March 1979, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and denied his request.








Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted
personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was unfit for military duty at the time of his enlistment and that he had a serious psychiatric problem while on active duty; however, medical evidence failed to indicate that the applicant
had any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.
At the time of entry and separation, the applicant’s medical examination, which was prepared by competent medical authority, determined that the applicant was then medically fit.

2. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, that he accepted responsibility for some of his actions, and that those actions were mitigated by the onset of his illness and his inability to fully grasp English; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia during his period of service.

3. The Board also notes that the applicant indicated on his entrance examination, dated 14 November 1974, that he did not speak English; however, his Personnel Qualification Record shows that he completed his high school GED in 1975 in the state of New York. The Board further notes that there was a 6-week gap between his enlistment date and BCT and that he stated on his supportive statement that he attended school for 6 weeks but did not speak English well.

4. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

5. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
6. 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.

7. 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

__ca__ ___dh___ ___cg_____ DENY APPLICATION




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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057751
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010911
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770202
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR2001057751
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.