MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            14 January 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12448
				   AR1998012809

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That he suffered from schizophrenia at the time of his separation and this “disability” caused him to go AWOL.  He also contends it affected his ability to address the charges preferred against him as well as effectively be represented by counsel.  He claims he was paranoid in 1972 and should have been treated. 

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The applicant is represented by the Stanley Law Firm; however, no brief has been submitted.

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

The applicant was inducted on 25 August 1969, successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a wheel vehicle repairman. 

On 17 January 1970 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 January 1970 to 15 January 1970.  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand, a forfeiture of pay and 30 days extra duty and restriction.

The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 9 March 1970 of being AWOL from 27 January 1970 until on or about 20 February 1970.  His punishment consisted of confinement for 4 months and a forfeiture of pay.  On
10 March 1970, the convening authority approved the sentence; however, suspended the confinement.

On 18 May 1971 NJP was imposed against the applicant for three specifications of leaving his appointed place of duty without authority.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days extra duty.

On 26 July 1971 NJP was imposed against the applicant for using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.
 
The applicant’s personnel records show he was pending separation due to unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, when it was discovered that there was question as to his mental competence.  DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 13 September 1971, shows he was pending administrative actions for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, as a result of mental incompetence. 
   
The applicant went AWOL from 16 September 1971 until 24 September 1971.  He again went AWOL on 3 October 1971 and remained absent until he returned to military control on 22 March 1972.

Court-martial charges for the aforementioned AWOL offenses were preferred against the applicant on 6 April 1972 and he was referred to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.   

On 11 April 1972 the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf whereas he briefly described his family background and military career.  He stated he was a “dope addict” and had to get away from the people because he was going “insane”.  He requested that he be issued a “200 Discharge” based on his completion of everything except 3 or 4 days in the military.     

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 5 May 1972 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under conditions other than honorable on 5 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10.  He had served 2 years, 1 month, and 6 days of total active service and had 217 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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 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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3.  The applicant’s contention that he suffered from schizophrenia at the time of his separation and this “disability” caused him to go AWOL appears to be without merit.  Records show the applicant commenced his first AWOL period within five months of his induction and he continued a pattern of unauthorized absences throughout his enlistment (totaling 217 days lost).  Neither the applicant, nor his counsel, has submitted any evidence to support this contention.  

4.  The Board finds no merit to the applicant’s contention that he was paranoid in 1972 and should have been treated.  The applicant’s records document the fact that he was pending separation due to unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 prior to being processed for mental incompetence under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501.  However, the Board notes that he again went AWOL instead of giving the Army a chance to treat his illness. 

5.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.

6.  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

__rvo ___  ___slp___  ___kan__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12448/AR1998012809	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/05/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A94.07		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.