MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            7 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039232

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		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 (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had trouble adjusting to Army life because of psychological, marital and financial problems.  When his marriage broke up, he started drinking alcohol and using drugs.  He became depressed to the point that he attempted to commit suicide.  His command was not supportive and he was not given proper consideration for a hardship discharge.  He believes that he should have been discharged as a result of a physical disability. 
He submits a letter written in his own behalf and a Standard Form (SF) 
93 (Report of Medical History) in support of his request.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant contends that he was unjustly separated with a UD.  He had a severe psychiatric condition and family problems which diminished his ability to serve.  Additionally, a psychiatric evaluation determined that he suffered from depression manifested by a suicide attempt, anorexia, insomnia and a passive aggressive personality.  He had a history of severe financial and family difficulties and that his adjustment in the Army had been chaotic.  

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

That on 6 July 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 24 September 1971, he was assigned to advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Field Wireman) at Fort Dix.  His DA Form 20 (Personnel Qualification Record shows that his duty performance was rated as unsatisfactory in November 1971.  Apparently, he did not complete the requirements for the course, because he was not awarded the MOS.

On 3 December 1971, he departed his unit at Fort Dix in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and he remained AWOL until 7 December 1971.  He departed his unit AWOL again from 17 December 1971-1 January 1972.  The available records do not show that he received any type of disciplinary action for these offenses.

On 11 January 1972, a Line of Duty (LOD) investigation revealed that on 
9 December 1971, the applicant overdosed when he took an unknown medicine of an unknown quantity.  The LOD investigation determined that his injury was not in the line of duty.

On 17 January 1972, he was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma to attend AIT in MOS 13A (Field Artillery Crewman).  He completed the training requirements and was awarded the MOS.  On 31 March 1972, he was assigned to Germany.
On 5 June 1972, a LOD investigation revealed that on 7 May 1992, while the applicant was in a beer tent at a carnival off post, an unidentified civilian struck him in the face and head with a beer mug and caused lacerations to his scalp.  The LOD investigation determined that the injury was not in the line of duty.

On 19 July 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was imposed against him under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully destroying government property with his fist and for assaulting another soldier by striking him in the face with his fist.  The type of property that he destroyed is not specified.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade 
E-1 (suspended) and forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

He departed AWOL from his unit in Germany on 16 October 1972.  On 6 March 1973, he returned to military control at the US Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Dix.  On 13 March 1973, he was informed that special court martial charges were being preferred against him for this period of AWOL.

On 20 March 1973, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  On an unknown date, his request was denied.

On 27 April 1973, the applicant departed AWOL from the PCF, Fort Dix.  On 
18 July 1973, he returned to military control at Fort Dix.  

On 20 July 1973, he was informed that court martial charges were being preferred against him for being AWOL from 16 October 1972-6 March 1973 and from 27 April-18 July 1973.

On 7 August 1973, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was found to have had a long history of financial and personal problems, and he had seriously abused alcohol and drugs.  He was determined to have “reactive depression as manifested by a suicide attempt, anorexia, insomnia; and an acute passive aggressive personality.  He had no mental or physical defects warranting hospitalization or medical separation.  He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He was also determined to have the mental capacity to understand the nature of board proceedings and to cooperate intelligently in his own defense.”  The examining official urged administrative separation. 

On 14 August 1973, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he was guilty of the offenses, and that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

The SF 93, dated 16 August 1973, that the applicant submitted was a physical examination that cleared him for separation.  The examination shows that he was in good health.  He had attempted to commit suicide and that he had been treated for a mental condition.   

On 31 August 1973, his unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  He was placed on excess leave.  On 
6 September 1973, competent authority approved his request. 

On 25 September 1973, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  His DD Form
214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he had completed 1 year, 
6 months and 8 days of active military service; he also had 245 days lost time due to being AWOL.

There is nothing in the applicant’s record to show that he ever applied for a hardship discharge.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review 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 a UD.

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 this requirement.

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board determined that there is no evidence to indicate that the applicant ever requested a hardship discharge, or that his command failed to assist him.  Even if so, he had many other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

4.  His conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

5.  The applicant’s mental and physical examinations determined that he was fit for separation.  He did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

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

___cla___  __wtm___  __tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

					

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039232	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731025	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.