APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was and is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  He was taking a lot of medications and didn’t know what he was doing when he went absent without leave (AWOL).

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

He was born on 20 April 1958.  He completed 11 years of formal education but also earned his high school GED.  On  29 June 1977 he entered the Delayed Entry Program.  On     20 July 1977 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

On 12 January 1979, the applicant was evaluated by the Mental Health Clinic at Ft Clayton, Panama Canal Zone.  The evaluating physician noted “his behavior was grossly bizarre but in a contrived sort of way,” “when the inappropriateness of his behavior was called to his attention, he stopped,” and “he was extremely manipulative.”  The physician recommended that the applicant be air evacuated to the United States for further evaluation, treatment and disposition.

On 25 January 1979, the applicant arrived at Ft Gordon, GA; on 26 January 1979, he went AWOL and remained AWOL until 6 February 1980.

On 7 February 1980, a Navy physician diagnosed the applicant with “inadequate personality.”  

On 14 February 1980, the Army sent the applicant for a mental status evaluation.  The evaluating physician found no evidence of mental illness; however, because of his history of schizophrenia in Panama the physician referred him to Psychiatry.

On 27 February 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with one specification of 
AWOL for the period 7 February 1979 - 6 February 1980.

On 29 February 1980, the applicant was evaluated by the Chief of Community Mental Health who found “no mental disorder.”

On or about 12 March 1980, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 1 April 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 23 April 1980, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year and 9 months of creditable active service and had 369 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the 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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Competent military medical authority examined the applicant prior to his separation and found no mental illness or mental disorder.

3.  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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director