MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061435

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 uncharacterized discharge be changed to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability and that all monies deducted from his pay as a result of two nonjudicial punishments be returned to him.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that instead of being railroaded out of the Army with an uncharacterized discharge, he should have been afforded medical help for his problem and allowed to continue his enlistment.  However, he was discharged 1 week before his initial 6 months of service ended, when he could have received a characterized discharge.  In support of his application he submits a copy of a statement from a doctor who indicates that the applicant is the son of a Vietnam veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and as such meets the criteria for PTSD of childhood origin.  He further opines that in coping with the stresses the applicant experienced in the Army, it aggravated his PTSD and caused him to decompensate.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army in New Orleans, Louisiana on 18 June 1999 for a period of 3 years and training as a food service specialist.  He completed his basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT). 

On 4 November 1999, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $200.00, restriction and extra duty.

On 4 December 1999, NJP was imposed against him for being drunk on duty and disobeying lawful orders from two noncommissioned officers.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $479.00 for 2 months, restriction and extra duty.

On 7 December 1999, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service with an uncharacterized discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s record of NJP as well as additional incidents of using vulgar language towards noncommissioned officers, indecent exposure, failure to wear the proper uniform, breaking restriction, failure to report for extra duty, cursing a drill sergeant and wearing earrings on a military installation.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 8 December 1999 and was deemed to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  He also underwent a medical and physical examination and was deemed fit for retention.
The commander initiated the recommendation for separation on 8 December 1999 and after consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that his service be uncharacterized.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 10 December 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct.  His service was uncharacterized and he had served 5 months and 23 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  It provides that action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, that regulation also provides that personnel who are in an entry level status (180 days or less of active duty service, when separation proceedings are initiated) may be separated with their service uncharacterized.  That regulation also provides that separation for medical reasons will not preclude a separation for misconduct and that separations for misconduct take precedence over medical-related separations.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions appear to be without merit.  Not only was the applicant medically and mentally cleared for separation, there is no conclusive or persuasive evidence to show that his alleged condition at the time was the resultant cause of his misconduct.  Therefore, given his otherwise undistinguished record of service, the Board finds that his contentions are insufficient to warrant relief in his case.

4.  The Board also finds no basis to overturn or set-aside the nonjudicial punishments that were imposed against him and as such, the punishments will stand.
5.  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.

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

__kak ___  ___ra ___  ____jh __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061435	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/12/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH14	
DISCHARGE REASON	MISCONDUCT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  516	144.2900/A29.00	
2.  538	144.3100/A31.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.