MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11404

	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.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms.	Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms.	Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms.	Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 medical or honorable discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was hearing voices in his head while he was in basic training and he was diagnosed as having effective schizophrenia disorder. He further states that he was placed in a psychiatric ward and then later he was returned to duty.  He concludes by stating that the voices that he was hearing in his head caused him to go AWOL.

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

On 14 December 1973, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  He successfully completed his training in field artillery. 

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 27 March 1974 and on 1 April 1974 for leaving his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 July 1974 for being AWOL.  He was AWOL from 29 April until 2 May 1974, 5 May until 20 May 1974, and 17 June until 22 June 1974.

Charges were also preferred against him on 11 July 1974 for being AWOL from 30 June until 3 July 1974 and for escaping from confinement.

The applicant was notified that charges were pending against him and on 9 July 1974, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

He underwent a medical examination on 10 July 1974, and he indicated that he was in good mental health.

On 2 August 1974, the request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly he was discharged on 9 August 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 6 months and 25 days of total active service and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 14 June 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his contention that he was experiencing mental problems while he was in the Army.  He underwent a medical examination prior to his discharge and he indicated that he was in good mental health.  He had NJP imposed against him on two occasions and he went AWOL on numerous occasions.  Moreover, he escaped from confinement while he was awaiting trial.  Considering his numerous acts of misconduct, an undesirable discharge appears to be appropriate.

4.  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.

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

__emw __  ___lem__  __cs  ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director