APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was sick and suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (undiagnosed) on active duty.  In the command’s haste to eliminate him, multiple options favorable to him could have been done.

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

He was born on 3 October 1951.  He completed 13 years of formal education.  Prior to his enlistment, he received a psychiatric examination because he reported depression following a June 1972 arrest for possession of stolen property.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed him as having an early adult adjustment reaction, and found him qualified for enlistment.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 1972 for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

The applicant served in Korea from February 1973 to May 1974, where he received a letter of appreciation from his commander on 17 April 1974.  He was honorably discharged on 30 July 1974 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 31 July 1974 for 6 years for reassignment to Korea.

On 10 March 1975, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for leaving his place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50 pay for 1 month and 14 days extra duty.

On 13 June 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully having in his possession 6 tablets, more or less, of a habit forming narcotic drug, to wit: Optaldom, a barbiturate acid.

In May 1976, the applicant as hospitalized due to bizarre behavior and was diagnosed as having a situational reaction. He was hospitalized in June 1976 due to violent behavior and was discharged with a diagnosis of episodic alcoholism.
On 3 August 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order and being disrespectful in language towards his superior            non-commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 and 14 days extra duty.

On 27 September 1976, the applicant was seen by the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, was identified for possible entry into the drug abuse program and prescribed Antabuse.

On 7 October 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 8 October 1976, the applicant self-referred himself to and enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  The program required him to be seen at the Community Assistance Center once a week for    60 days and once a month for the rest of the year.

On 10 November 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  The applicant made a signed notation that he was in good health.

On 8 December 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being incapacitated for duty due to previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor (the incident happened on or about 14 October 1976).  His imposed punishment was     45 days extra duty and restriction.

A mental status evaluation found the applicant’s behavior normal, found no significant mental illness, found him to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and with the capacity to understand and participate in administrative separation proceedings.

On 13 December 1976, the applicant’s commander notified him he was being recommended for separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability due to his apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.
On 18 January 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, waived representation by counsel, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf, and stated he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.

On 31 January 1977, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

On 4 February 1977, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He had completed 4 years, 4 months and 22 days of creditable active service and had 1 day of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsuitability and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the individual displays defective attitudes, apathy and inability to expend effort constructively and it is unlikely he will develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and or become a satisfactory soldier.  An honorable or general discharge was issued as determined y the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, the VA noted that mental problems were not reflected in the service medical records and that the applicant reported no history of psychiatric problems until 1987.  The VA awarded him     non-service connected disability benefits for acquired paranoid schizophrenia.

On 14 November 1994, on appeal, the VA found a service connection established for chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type with a 70 percent assigned evaluation.  The appeal was granted primarily upon a March 1994 evaluation by a VA doctor of a 1976 statement by the applicant’s platoon leader describing several disruptive incidents in which the applicant was involved.

An advisory opinion was obtained from the medical advisor to the Department of the Army Review Boards Agency.  The opinion states, in effect, that a medical evaluation based upon one statement made almost 20 years earlier is not a basis for judging the applicant’s performance at the time.  The opinion also states, in effect, that the personality type described by his pre-enlistment psychiatry consultation, early adult adjustment reaction, may have resulted in his drug/alcohol abuse, which was/is not a medical condition, and may have contributed to his perceived unsatisfactory subsequent service.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, 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 record was not unblemished prior to May 1976, when he claims his paranoid schizophrenia began.  He enlisted with an arrest record and had been punished under Article 15, UCMJ on two separate occasions.  One of those Article 15s was for possession of a habit forming narcotic.

3.  The contention of the applicant has been noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations then in effect and the applicant’s service was appropriately characterized.

4.  Therefore, 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