MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:             22 March 2001                
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045496

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 “dishonorable” (sic) under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he is now diagnosed as being schizophrenic and receives no (military) disability.  He further states that when he was in the service, he strove for military excellence in some areas and was unable to reach his goals in others due to his form of mental illness.  He claims that he set his goals too high, but was unable to perform them because of a hurt knee.  He also points out that he had to spend most of his time receiving medical treatment after his discharge, which was in error or unjust.  In support of his case, he provides a partial copy of a mental examination conducted by a licensed psychologist undated, which shows that he received mental health services after his discharge from the service from 1984 through the early 1990’s, a letter to further explain the circumstances surrounding his behavior while on active duty and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 
18 January 1978. 

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he had a prior period of honorable service from 30 July 1974 to 29 July 1977 on active duty in the Regular Army (RA) and then in the Inactive Reserve from 30 July 1977 to 27 December 1981.  On 
28 December 1981, he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the United States Army Reserve.

On 29 January 1982, he was discharged from the DEP and reenlisted in the RA for 3 years with the rank of private, pay grade E-2.  He was then assigned to one-station-unit-training in military occupational specialty (MOS) of 11B10 at Fort Benning, Georgia on 9 February 1982.  On 21 May 1982, he was assigned to Korea for duty.  

On 1 June 1983, he returned to the Continental United States and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington for duty.

On 21 October 1984, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) until
10 January 1985, at which time he was apprehended and returned to military control.  Upon his return to military control he was charged with this period of AWOL. 

On 16 January 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court martial.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.

During the counseling process, he was advised that he could request a separation medical examination.  However, there is no evidence of record that he ever requested such an examination.

On 4 February 1985, the separation authority approved his request for discharge.  On 27 February 1985. he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge.  He had 2 years, 10 months and 9 days of creditable service and had 81 days of lost time due.

On 15 July 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his requested to upgrade 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 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 charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC 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.  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 he received less than competent legal counsel or that his request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant’s entire record of service was considered during the review of this case.  The Board was convinced that the reason for discharge and the upgrade of his characterization of service were both proper and equitable and that the applicant’s prior service was not sufficiently mitigating to grant the full relief requested.

4.  There is no probative evidence of any medical problems in his record or with his application that shows he had any medical condition which precluded his performance of duty.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there has been no basis established to change the reason for his discharge, and that he has no entitlement to further compensation from the military.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__slp____  __jpi____  __rks____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045496	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON	A6800	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	ABCMR	
ISSUES         1.	A94.31	
2.	126.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.