MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999031541

	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.

	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a 19 year old kid when his hearing was destroyed by an unusual round blast which caused a constant ringing and permanent loss of hearing.  He contends that the Army was unable to correct this problem and showed no desire to help him.  He also states that this led to a loss of enthusiasm which led to the circumstances which eventually caused his discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 August 1975 for a period of three years.  He attended basic and advanced individual training at Fort Ord, California.  

While in advanced individual training (AIT), the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully possessing one ounce more or less of marijuana.  On 19 November 1975, the applicant declined a trial by court-martial, elected not to have a public hearing before the unit commander, declined a spokesman in his behalf, and requested to present statements in person.  On 19 November 1975, the unit commander considered all the matters presented to him in the applicant’s defense and imposed the following punishments:  (1)  a verbal reprimand; (2) forfeiture of $150.00 per month for a period of two months; and (3)  restriction to the company for a period of thirty days.  The unit commander advised the applicant of his right to appeal the punishment.  On 3 December 1975, the applicant elected to appeal the nonjudicial punishment and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The Assistant Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the appeal and determined that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations and that the punishments imposed were not unjust or disproportionate to the offense committed.

In January 1976, the applicant was assigned to Germany to serve in military occupational specialty 64C (motor transportation operator).  

During March 1976, the applicant began to experience problems with ringing in his right ear for indefinite amounts of time.  He was evaluated in the Monteith dispensary and was referred to the hospital in Nurnberg for sick call on 26 March 1976.  

A DA Form 4465 (ADAPCP Military Client Intake and Follow-Up Record), dated 7 April 1976, in the applicant’s personnel records reveal that he was diagnosed for abuse of hash.  This document also shows the applicant received two nonjudicial punishments and one episode of being absent without leave (AWOL); however, there is only one nonjudicial punishment and no evidence of AWOL available in his records.

Prior to discharge, the applicant underwent a separation mental status evaluation and medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111211.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 11 May 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He had 8 months and 16 days of creditable service. 

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he suffered permanent loss of hearing when he was 19 years old in the Army, that the Army was unable to correct this problem and showed no desire to help him.  However, medical evidence of record shows, at the time of his discharge, the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found qualified for separation by competent medical authority.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all 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 the aforementioned 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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

FE_____  CLA_____  SVW____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031541	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000413	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760511	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200.  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service – in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.