MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071792

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he suffered a borderline disorder and was psychologically unstable but was not seen by a psychiatrist.  He did not know what was wrong with him and the Army did not give him any medical help.  When his uncle died, he suffered severe trauma.  His previous record shows that he served honorably before this time.  He was diagnosed with a borderline disorder and schizophrenia with a paranoid effect in 1982.  Before he received the appropriate medicine, he was in such misery he turned to alcohol and drugs.  

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 27 March 2001 (docket number AR2000050458).

The applicant provides a handwritten document dated 11 September 2001 from a civilian doctor.  The letter indicates the doctor saw the applicant from 1982 - 1990 and had diagnosed him with dysthymic disorder and mixed substance dependence and borderline personality disorder.  The doctor stated the applicant had episodic bouts of extreme psychosis accompanied by extreme behavioral problems and episodic alcohol and substance abuse relapses.  

The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1975.  On 18 October 1977, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 14 May 1979, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 18 April 1979, being disrespectful to a commissioned officer on 18 April 1979, disobeying a lawful order on 18 April 1979, and committing assault and inflicting grievous bodily harm on 19 April 1979.  His report of trial indicated he entered the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program around 9 November 1978, admitted he had an alcohol problem around 16 April 1979, and was then placed on Antabuse.  The applicant's alcohol counselor testified that he gave the Antabuse to the applicant's First Sergeant on 17 or 18 April 1979, who said he would ensure the applicant took it.  The First Sergeant testified that he did not give the applicant the Antabuse supplied by the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program.

Three of the four offenses for which the applicant was charged occurred on         18 April 1979; the assault charge occurred on 19 April 1979.  According to the transcript of trial, the assault charge was alcohol related.

On 7 May 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was found to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and able to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in court-martial proceedings.  His thought content was found to be normal (not abnormal or hallucinatory and with no paranoid ideation and no delusions).  

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 evidence of record shows the applicant was given a mental status evaluation prior to his court-martial and no evidence of a mental disorder was found.

3.  It is noted that the applicant was entered into the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program around 9 November 1978 but did not admit he had an alcohol problem until around 16 April 1979, at which time he was placed on Antabuse.  The Antabuse was given to the applicant's First Sergeant on 17 or 18 April 1979 to ensure the applicant took it.  Testimony indicated the First Sergeant did not immediately give it to the applicant.  The offenses for which the applicant was charged occurred on 18 and 19 April 1979, and the assault charge, which occurred on   19 April 1979, was alcohol related.  Nevertheless, it does not appear the First Sergeant egregiously erred by delaying giving the Antabuse to the applicant by only a day or two.  The Army attempted to help the applicant by entering him into the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program in November 1978.  Had he made an earnest attempt to help himself, he could have been on the drug much earlier, prevented a lot of his misery, and perhaps have prevented the misconduct for which he was court-martialed.

4.  It is noted that the applicant's prior record of service was not without incident.  He received an Article 15 during his first enlistment.

5.  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.

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

__JHL__  __MMD__  ___REB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071792	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/12/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.