IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200001493 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, a change to his narrative reason for separation to show he was discharged due to a disability and a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Client Summary, dated 14 April 2019 * Patient Medication List, undated FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year period provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his schizophrenia was the cause of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. His symptoms began in service where he heard voices telling him “though shalt not kill-those people [they] are training you to kill.” He contends that he was discharged shortly after he reported what he was experiencing. His discharge prevents him from receiving treatment. 3. His military records show: * he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1976 * the highest grade he held was private/E-1 * no awards for valor 4. On 7 December 1976, he underwent a Mental Hygiene examination, which included an interview and a review of his medical records. The examiner found the applicant was free from mental defect, disease, or derangement as to be able to distinguish right from wrong, and be able to adhere to the right. 5. On 16 February 1977, while assign to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him for - * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 9 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, bed check, 16 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, company formation, 17 January 1977 * disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer to get a haircut, 28 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 12 February 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 13 February 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 14 February 1977 6. On 14 March 1977, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel). a. His request indicated he was taking this action of his own free will, without coercion from anyone, and he was aware of the implications attached to his request. He also admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. b. Further, he acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge UOTHC and he might be deprived of many or all benefits as a result of such a discharge. c. The record is void of a statement from the applicant. 7. He completed a separation physical on 16 March 1977. He reported being in good health. He did not report hearing voices or having any mental health concerns. 8. His immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial. He cited the applicant’s flagrant and public disrespect for military authority, his gross lack of self-discipline and a lackadaisical attitude. The applicant’s other acts of misconduct had clearly effected the morale and discipline of the unit by influencing other impressionable trainees. Further, his repeated acts of failure to repair, disobedience, and unauthorized absences, clearly demonstrated he had, and would continue to do only what he desired, despite repeated counseling, admonishment, and punishment. 9. On 24 March 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. He directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 1 April 1977. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 7 months, and 9 days of net active creditable service (as corrected by DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 29 April 1985) . It also reflects his service was characterized as UOTHC. 10. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of character of his service on 23 May 1979 and 14 May 1985. 11. The applicant provides post service medical records, which show he is being treated for schizophrenia and includes a list of his current medications. 12. Regulatory guidance states that request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary. 13. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant appears to be sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 14. The Board should consider the applicant's overall record and provided statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 15. Based on the applicant's contention(s) the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provides a written review of the applicant's medical records, outlined in the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section of this Record of Proceedings. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to change to his narrative reason for separation to show he was discharged due to a disability and a personal appearance before the Board. The applicant states, in effect, his schizophrenia was the cause of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. His symptoms began in service where he heard voices telling him “though shalt not kill-those people [they] are training you to kill.” He contends that he was discharged shortly after he reported what he was experiencing. His discharge prevents him from receiving treatment. 2. On 16 February 1977, while assign to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him for - * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 9 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, bed check, 16 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, company formation, 17 January 1977 * disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer to get a haircut, 28 January 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 12 February 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 13 February 1977 * failing to go to his appointed place of duty, security guard, 14 February 1977 3. On 14 March 1977, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel). 4. The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Client Summary, dated 14 April 2019 * Patient Medication List, undated 5. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) has no data. 6. A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. 7. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 7 SEP 1976 and was discharged on 1 APR 1977 the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. He directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. 8. He completed a separation physical on 16 March 1977. He reported being in good health. He did not report hearing voices or having any mental health concerns. Additionally, the applicant affirmed that he had never been treated for a mental health condition previously. 9. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of character of his service on 23 May 1979 and 14 May 1985. 10. JLV contains no Behavioral records, nor is there any indications of a BH diagnosis. 11. The applicant provides post service medical records, dated 16 APR 2019. which show he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and includes a list of his current medications. This documentation does not include treatment notes which might have given history to his diagnosis. There is no evidence, however that the applicant was suffering with undiagnosed schizophrenia while in service at the age of 17. The evidence, that is presented does not give any indication the applicant had schizophrenia at the time of enlistment or discharge. He contends he was discharged after reporting to hearing voices with the implication that he was discharged for hearing voices. The record clearly identifies the misbehavior for which he was separated from the military, which do not appear to be related to auditory hallucinations. 12. After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant does not have a mitigating BH diagnosis. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. Under liberal guidance there is no mitigating factor for his unsatisfactory performance. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was / was not warranted. 2. The Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. Although the applicant provided documentation supporting a diagnosis of a behavioral health condition, his record is void of any documentation indicating that he had undiagnosed schizophrenia when he enlisted or at the time of his discharge. Therefore, a change to his narrative reason for separation is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XXX :XXX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time. Request were voluntary and did not require a medical examination unless the member requested an examination. b. Provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 3. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 4. AR 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. a. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. c. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200001493 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1