MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041880

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not present at his court-martial hearing.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and medical evidence for schizophrenia after his discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The American Legion as counsel for the applicant, contends that the applicant suffered from psychiatric problems that diminished his ability to serve.  Counsel also states that a report of mental status evaluation dated 15 June 1987 indicated that the examiner felt that the applicant was in need of psychiatric evaluation.  Counsel further states that there is also a record of a report of treatment, dated 24 March 1987, in which the applicant was diagnosed as having questionable schizophrenic behavior complicated by poly-drug abuse.  Counsel goes on to state that the veteran has submitted medical evidence indicating that he began treatment for schizophrenia following his discharge from service and that he is now married, working, and leading a productive life.  Counsel requested that the Board’s final decision reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 30 October 1985 as an ammunition specialist and was assigned to Germany in that military occupational specialty in April 1986.

On 9 April 1987, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for assault, for disorderly conduct, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on three occasions and for wrongful appropriation of government property.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 28 May 1987, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongful possession of marijuana, wrongful possession of a weapon, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for failure to return to his appointed place of duty and for making a false statement.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and 45 days extra duty.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 2 June 1987.

The applicant had previously undergone a separation medical examination on 6 April 1987 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 15 June 1987, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
The evaluation noted that he was angry, that he had an evaluation on 24 March 1987 and was referred for evaluation at 5th General Hospital Psychiatric Clinic.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 20 July 1987 for wrongful use of marijuana, for conspiring with another to commit wrongful appropriation of private property, for two specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for wrongful appropriation of private property.

On 28 July 1987, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 10 August 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 20 August 1987.  He had a total of 1 year, 9 months and 4 days of creditable service and 
17 days of lost time due to imprisonment.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 31 January 1986.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 27 March 1987.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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.  The Board noted the applicant contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  The Board also noted counsel’s contentions that the applicant suffered from psychiatric problems that diminished his ability to serve and that a report of mental status evaluation indicated that the applicant was angry and in need of psychiatric evaluation.  However, records shows that the applicant was treated on 24 March 1987 and was diagnosed as having questionable schizophrenic behavior complicated by poly-drug-abuse and was referred for evaluation at 5th General Hospital Psychiatric Clinic.  The Board further noted that competent medical authority determined that the applicant was medically fit for separation.
Accordingly, he was separated from active duty not as a result of a medical condition. 

3.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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.  

5.  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:

SP______  TLP_____  MW____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041880	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19870820	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 c, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.