IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    10 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100016578 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of an earlier request for a discharge upgrade to general.

2.  The applicant states:

* He only completed the 9th grade and he can't read
* His sergeant gave him high standards in basic training, marksmanship, and neatness
* He was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (motor transport operator)
* He had personal problems
* He sustained injuries (eye, feet, and groin) while in the service 
* He knows if he had been educated he would have made better decisions
* Being illiterate caused him to make bad decisions  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his request for reconsideration.

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 AR20090016193, on 15 April 2010.

2.  His contentions are new arguments which will be considered by the Board.

3.  His enlistment contract shows he did not graduate high school and contains the entry "I have successfully completed 10th grade."  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1976 and trained as a motor transport operator.  The highest rank/grade he held during his tenure of service was private first class.

4.  Between 2 February and 12 October 1977, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on three occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL), possessing marijuana, and using disrespectful language.

5.  The applicant went AWOL on 17 April 1978 and returned to military control on 16 May 1978.  On 17 May 1978, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period.

6.  His voluntary request for discharge is not available but his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows on 29 September 1978 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 21 days of creditable active service with 147 days of lost time.

7.  Service medical records show he was treated for a sprained ankle on 
17 March 1977, an abscess on left groin side in November 1977, groin injury (hit by basketball) in November 1977, and left eye injury on 27 January 1978.

8.  His DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record, Part I), prepared on 12 April 1978, shows his GT [General Technical] score was 112.  This form also shows his physical profile was 111111.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  At the time, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

12.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) 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
* S - psychiatric

13.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant now contends he only completed the 9th grade and can't read.  However, his 1976 enlistment record shows he completed the 10th grade and his DA Form 2, prepared on 12 April 1978, shows his GT score was 112.  No evidence shows illiteracy caused his misconduct.  

2.  His contention he had family problems was noted.  However, there is no evidence he sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain in a way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures.



3.  He contends he sustained injuries while in the service and service medical records show he was treated for various injuries but his physical profile dated
18 April 1978 was 111111.  

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for a general discharge.

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 AR20090016193, dated 15 April 2010.




      __________X___________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100016578



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100016578



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1