PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           27 April l999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016256

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in essence, upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions.  On 19 June 1974, this Board reviewed and denied his case for consideration for a medical disability separation, which would have resulted in an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Since records reflecting the Board’s consideration at that time are no longer available, it is impossible to determine if the evidence and arguments now presented are new and different.  Therefore, the case is reviewed de novo.  

3.  The applicant states, in essence, that he had medical and drug abuse problems while on active duty and that he did not receive medical or drug abuse treatment help.  He continues to have psychological and mental health problems. 

4.  His military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army at age l7, with parental consent, on 10 November 1971 for 3 years.  He was a high school graduate.  He was trained as a Field Artillery Crewman, military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A.  Upon completion of his training, he was assigned to a Field Artillery unit in Germany in May 1972.  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 during training and to pay grade E-3 while in Germany on 15 November 1972.

5.  On or about 24 May 1973, the applicant was referred by his command to the local Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Program facility for evaluation due to being caught with drugs (hashish) at the gate to his installation.  There is no evidence that any more action was taken to assist him than to complete a form for entry into the drug control program.   

6.  On 25 May 1973, he was charged with a two day period of absence without leave (AWOL) (16-18 May 1972), for disobeying lawful commands from a commissioned officer on 22 and 23 May 1972, and for disobeying the lawful order of a staff sergeant on 23 May 1973.  The applicant immediately consulted with legal counsel and was advised of his rights.  On the same date, 25 May 1972,  he requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He did not submit a statement on his own behalf.

7.  On 8 June 1973, the applicant’s request for discharge was approved by the appropriate separation authority.  He directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank and that he be issued a UD.  

8.  On 12 June 1973, the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found fit for continued active duty or separation.  There were no entries made, nor did the applicant claim any drug abuse or mental health problems.  

9.  On 19 June 1973, the applicant was discharged from the Army with a UD, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 10 days of active service and no lost time was recorded.  He also had no other recorded indisciplines, record of counselings or other indicators of poor duty performance.

10.  Information available in his records shows that the applicant was admitted to a civilian medical facility (mental hospital) near his home in late July 1973 and was diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Stress was deemed to be severe and was related to his family situation.

11.  On 19 June 1974, this Board denied his request for a medical disability separation.  The Office of the Surgeon General had reviewed his records at that time and found that he had received a separation physical and was found fit for duty or separation.  He was advised to go to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for consideration of upgrade of his characterization of service.

12.  On 26 August 1980, the ADRB reviewed his discharge and denied upgrade of his characterization, or a change in his reason for discharge.

13.  On 14 October 1983, the staff of this Board denied his request for reconsideration of his request for a change in his discharge.  This denial was based upon the procedures then in effect.  

14.  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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, in effect at the time, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  However, the Board is not convinced that command exercised good leadership in this case.  The Board notes that the applicant had a clean record at the time of his misconduct, that the events were all grouped together, and there is no indication that command attempted to determine the causes for his problems, nor to refer him to the appropriate medical or mental health officials for evaluation.

3.  While the Board does not condone the misconduct of the applicant, it also notes that the offenses were relatively minor and disposition/punishment might have been accomplished through other means.  

4.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions, but there is no basis established for a change in reason for his discharge.

5.  If his discharge is upgraded, this would entail restoration of his rank to pay grade E-3 since he was reduced to pay grade E-1 solely in connection with the discharge action which required reduction when a UD was issued.

6.  Notwithstanding the above, the Board does not find any basis to grant an upgrade of his discharge based on psychological or drug abuse problems.  The applicant underwent a medical examination at the time of his separation and was found medically fit for duty or separation.  This matter was previously considered by this Board and the ADRB, and no probative medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to overcome these prior determinations.

7.  Further, because his separation action was processed in an expeditious manner in 1973, in accordance with his voluntary request for discharge in lieu of court-martial action, there was insufficient time for him to undergo any kind of drug abuse treatment program, even if such a need was established.  

8.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:

	a.  that the UD issued to the individual concerned on 19 June 1973 is void and without force or effect; and

	b.  that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate, under honorable conditions, effective 19 June 1973, with the same reason for discharge.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

3.  Administrative action will need to be taken to restore the applicant’s rank to pay grade E-3 in connection with this action. 

BOARD VOTE:  

_RVO’C__  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  __ JNS__  ___CLG__  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016256	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19740619 (De Novo)	
DATE BOARDED	19990427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730619	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A7000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	A0113	
3.	A9408	
4.	A9236	
5.	A9317	
6.	A9323