RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	 6 November 2007 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005902 


	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.


x
	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request that his general discharge, under honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The applicant, in his request for reconsideration also requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, in a supplement to his request for an upgrade of his discharge, that he experienced a mental breakdown due to serious circumstance of illness.  He was reported to his general and to the chaplain.  They reviewed his condition but he was not given any rehabilitation nor was he hospitalized for his condition.  He needed these services then he could have continued his military duty.  He continues by asking the Board to reconsider his request and change the narrative reason for his discharge to, for in effect, medical conditions.  He summarizes his supplemental statement by adding he was told his discharge would eventually be changed to a medical discharge.  His condition, he states, has not changed since he was discharged from military service.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060008046, on 9 January 2007.

2.  During the original review of this case, the Board determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice and denied his request for an upgrade of a discharge to honorable.  The applicant, at the time of his original request, provided no argument other than he was trying to get VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) benefits due to his military service.

3.  The applicant's current argument is new evidence that has not previously been considered by the Board.  The applicant's new argument consists of his assertion that he experienced a mental breakdown due to serious circumstance of illness.  His general and the chaplain reviewed his condition but he was not 

given any rehabilitation nor was he hospitalized for his condition.  He needed these services, and he asserts, in effect, he could have continued his military duty.

4.  The applicant's record shows he voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army and entered service on 9 July 1974.  He was trained in and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Armorer/Unit Supply Specialist).  The applicant was assigned to Fort Hood for duty in the MOS in which he was trained.  Both the training he chose and the assignment to Fort Hood were enlistment options he chose at enlistment.

5.  The evidence shows the applicant was counseled by his platoon leader.  The applicant informed the platoon leader, on 25 November 1974, "the Army messed up his head and he could not handle what was required of him."  He informed the platoon leader he wanted out of the Army.

6.  Copies of DD Forms 689, Individual Sick Slip, are on file in the applicant's service personnel records.  These DD Forms 689 show the applicant went on sick call on 5, 11, 13, and 17 December 1974, due to his complaints of pains in his back and bad kidneys.  The applicant was returned to duty after each dispensary visit.

7.  On 9 January 1975, the applicant requested to see the chain of command about a discharge for his inability to adapt.  He made a claim he was unable to adapt to Army life but he could not give any specific reasons.  The platoon leader noted the applicant seemed unconcerned about his behavior and that it could result in less than an honorable discharge.  He also noted the applicant's resolve to get out of the Army was so strong he would resort to going absent without leave.  Based on his assessments, and applicant's lack of concern, the platoon leader recommended the applicant receive an expeditious discharge.  The platoon leader stated he felt additional counseling would not be beneficial.

8.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record, Part I, DA Form 2, in Item 30 (PULHES), shows the applicant had a P-1, U-1, L-1, H-1, E-1, and S-1.  Item 31 (Physical Category Code) shows the applicant was assigned a physical category code "A."

9.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record, Part II, DA Form 2-1, Item 4 (Assignment Considerations), is void of any entry that would indicate he had assignment consideration imposed [in effect a physical profile] due to a mental or an emotional condition or illness.

10.  The applicant's service personnel records are void of any medical treatment records to show he was ever diagnosed or treated for any mental or emotional difficulties or illnesses that would have supported his being processed for separation through medical channels.

11.  The applicant was processed for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, expeditious discharge program.

12.  The evidence indicates the applicant underwent a separation physical examination in conjunction with his discharge processing on 23 January 1975.  A Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) documenting this examination is not on file; however, on 29 January 1975, he signed a DA Form 3082, Statement of Medical Condition, which states he had a separation medical examination more than 3 working days prior to his departure from place of separation and to the best of his knowledge, since this separation physical examination, there had been no change in his medical condition.

13.  The applicant was discharged on 29 January 1975, and was issued a general discharge, under honorable conditions.  He was discharged in the rank and pay grade PV2, E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, "for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service."  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued shows he completed a total of 6 months and 21 days of creditable active military service.

14.  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.

15.  The Expeditious Discharge Program was implemented in November 1974 and provided that individuals who had demonstrated they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army, because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions:  poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or a failure to demonstrate promotion potential, could be discharged.  The policy provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  The provisions were intended to relieve unit commanders of the administrative burden normally associated with processing eliminations for cause through administrative discharge boards by providing a means to discharge such personnel expeditiously before they progressed to the point where board or punitive action became necessary.  Individuals discharge under the expeditious discharge program could be awarded an honorable or general discharge certificate, as appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he had a mental breakdown due to serious circumstance of illness and that he was not provided any rehabilitation or hospitalization for his condition was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence shows it was the applicant who asked to see members of his chain of command to ask for a discharge due to his inability to adapt.  He made a claim he was unable to adapt to Army life; but, he could not give any specifics about his claim.

3.  The evidence indicates the applicant underwent a separation physical examination in conjunction with his discharge processing.  The applicant's military personnel records are void of any medical treatment records to show he was ever diagnosed or treated for any mental or emotional illness that would have supported his being processed for separation through medical channels.

4.  With his application for reconsideration, the applicant failed to provide any documentation or medical records to confirm his contention he was experiencing 

mental difficulties at the time of his discharge and that these difficulties have continued.  Absent any evidence that the applicant suffered from a disabling mental condition at the time of his discharge, his contentions alone are not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for his separation.

5.  The applicant's contention he was told his discharge would eventually be changed to a medical discharge is acknowledged; however, the Army has never had, nor does it have, a system for the automatic of upgrading or the changing of the narrative reason for an individual's discharge.

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 or that would support amendment of the original Board decision in this case.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__x__  __x  __x ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060008046, dated 9 January 2007.  




_____x________
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005902
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071106
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19750129
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, paragraph 5-37, EDP.
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.
144.0135
3.
144.2400
4.

5.

6.