MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12651

	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	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable or under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a five page addendum the applicant writes that he acknowledges that he made a mistake while in the service but he has been paying for it for 30 years.  He has been under psychiatric treatment since he left the service and it was his sickness that caused him to make those mistakes.  He has not been able to get a good job and he cannot get treatment from the VA without a good discharge.  He submits documents from his psychiatric treatment files in support of his application.

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

He was inducted and entered active duty on 22 April 1968 at 19 years and 10 months of age.  He completed basic training with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings notwithstanding the fact that he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 11 days AWOL.  He entered training as an Army cook but failed to complete training.

On 22 August 1968 he was convicted by special court-martial of two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty and four specifications of disobeying an order.  The approved sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months, which was suspended for 6 months.

The applicant was AWOL again from 3 to 12 September 1968 and on 18 September 1968 the unexecuted portion of his previous sentence to confinement at hard labor was vacated.  He was placed in confinement from 18 September through 19 December 1968.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 7 November 1968 requested by the commander based on contemplated separation action.  The findings prepared by a medical corps psychiatrist state that the applicant has not adjusted to the service, with a marked dependence on his family, and he did not believe that he would make a satisfactory adjustment in the future.  He was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and of adhering to the right.  He was absent any mental condition that would warrant treatment, hospitalization, or other disposition through medical channels.  He recommended administrative separation.

On 14 November 1968 the commander recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness.  The commander noted his frequent breeches of military discipline, disobedience of lawful orders, and disrespect to superiors.  After consulting with counsel the applicant waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers and to submit a statement on his behalf.  He acknowledged that he may be ineligible for many or all veterans benefits.
The separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed separation with an undesirable discharge.  On 27 December 1968 the applicant was discharge under authority of Army Regulation 635-212.  He had 4 months and 12 days creditable service and 114 days lost time.

In April 1970 the applicant applied to this Board for a change to his discharge from undesirable to separation by reason of physical disability.  The Board reviewed a statement from a civilian psychiatrist that diagnosed the applicant with schizophrenic reaction, a VA psychiatrist report that diagnosed him as having a character and behavior disorder with a mild degree of impairment, and a report from the staff of the Army Surgeon General’s Office (OTSG) that he was medically fit for retention with no indication of any psychiatric illness that would have warranted discharge through medical channels.  On 5 May 1971 his request was denied.

In March 1973 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  In addition to the documents made available by the ABCMR from his prior review the ADRB also obtained clinical records from the VA.  The VA psychiatrist, a medical doctor, notes that a follow-up examination requested by the applicant because of differing diagnosis (civilian versus military and VA) continues to result in a diagnosis of a character and behavior disorder exists with no evidence of any schizophrenic condition.  On 24 October 1973 his request was denied by the ADRB.

In June 1980 the applicant again applied to the ADRB for a discharge upgrade and was granted a personal appearance before a travel panel.  After the panel of officers reviewed the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant, his father, his pastor, and his counselor they voted to deny the relief requested.  In their 1 February 1982 denial the ADRB noted the numerous acts of indiscipline over a short period of time and the diagnosis by both Army and VA psychiatrist’s that the applicant was normal.

A recent statement provided by an individual who identifies himself as the psychiatrist who is presently treating the applicant states that the applicant has been treated by him since April 1989 and has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, undifferentiated type, chronic.  He further states that the applicant is totally and permanently disabled and incompetent to handle his affairs.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was 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 was evaluated by a psychiatrist prior to his separation from active duty and subsequently evaluated by a VA psychiatrist.  Both of those psychiatrists determined that the applicant was not suffering from any schizophrenic condition and, in a 1971 advisory opinion, the OTSG agreed with that diagnosis.  The Board is aware that at times there will be an honest difference of opinion among professional medical health personnel as to a specific diagnosis or treatment as is evident by the dissenting opinion of the applicant’s attending psychiatrist.  However, that single opinion is not sufficient to overcome the other professional opinions provided to the Board.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  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_____  CJS_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12651	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681227	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-212  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.