MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:	

BOARD DATE:	29 December 1999
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999025962

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by setting aside his special court-martial and allowing his inheritance to be released by state officials.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was mentally ill to such a degree that he should not have been held accountable for his actions.  He avers that as a result of the nature of his discharge his inheritance is being held by the state.  He contends that the nature of his offenses did not warrant a punishment greater than non-judicial punishment (NJP).

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 14 April 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits a statement from his attending psychologist and psychiatrist attesting to their diagnosis and observations of the applicant.  The document notes that first known treatment for this condition was a hospitalization in March 1987 and that there were 11 subsequent hospitalizations.  The statement indicates that the applicant has had several diagnoses ranging from personality disorder to schizophrenia.  They indicate that the applicant is suffering from “a psychotic type of disorder with an atypical presentation.”

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.  This Board has no authority to order the release of any inheritance being held by a state agency.

2.  The statutory authority under which this Board was created (Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, as amended) precludes any action by this Board which would disturb the finality of a court-martial conviction.

3.  The applicant’s records show that, prior to the special court-martial, he had received NJP punishment on four occasions for diverse infractions.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

4.  There is no evidence of any psychiatric, psychological, mental, or emotional problems in the applicant’s service record.  The earliest indication of a problem is the notation that he was hospitalized five years after his discharge.  

5.  Absent convincing evidence that, at the time of the discharge or the behavior that led to the discharge, the applicant was so impaired by psychiatric, psychological, mental, or emotional problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the mental health issue does nothing to demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

6.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  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

__gdp__  ___clg ___  __cjp____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025962	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	 19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19821212	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, para 3	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.