MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999019411

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she suffers from a bipolar disorder and mental depression.  Her condition made it impossible for her to conform to acceptable military standards of behavior.  She was never examined or treated for mental health problems while in the Army, and did not discover that she had the disease until November 1994.  It was originally thought that she suffered from depression (recurrent), post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic anxiety disorder.  Further, she states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Medical Center agrees with the bipolar diagnosis and pinpoints her disability back to 21 December 1983.  At that time she was still on active duty.  When she goes into the manic phase she lacks the ability to complete any task.  When she enlisted in the military she was strong and healthy.  She successfully completed her first term of enlistment with pride and dignity.  Now her ability to perform is less than 75%.  Her ability to work is limited and she is only able to grade papers at a local college.  She submits records from Northeast Michigan Community Center Mental Health Services in support of her request.

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

That on 23 October 1973, she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and served successfully until she was honorably discharged on 14 October 1976.  After a break in service, she reenlisted in the RA on 22 September 1981, for 4 years, military occupational specialty (MOS) 
91R (Veterinary Food Inspection Specialist) and pay grade E-2.  

On 15 September, 5 October and 22 November 1982, nonjudicial punishments (NJP's) were imposed against the applicant under the provisions of an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  Her punishments included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 13 April 1983, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for unprofessional conduct. On numerous occasions she traded obscene names and insults with male coworkers.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from her unit from 20-28 October 1983, from 8-10 November 1983, and from 16 November - 8 December 1983.  On 8 December 1983, civilian authorities in San Antonio apprehended her and returned her to military authorities at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 

On 2 December 1983, a medical/physical examination cleared the applicant for separation. 

On 9 December 1983, court-martial charges were preferred for the above three periods of AWOL.  On 14 December 1983, she consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She was advised that the offenses for which she was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  She stated that she understood the ramifications of a UOTHC discharge, and she declined to submit a statement in her own behalf.  On 
16 December 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 20 December, competent authority approved her request.  

On 22 December 1983, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She had completed 2 years, 2 months and 3 days of active military service on the enlistment under review and she had completed 2 years, 11 months and 22 days total prior active service.  She also had 31 days lost time due to being AWOL. 

On 31 March 1989, the Social Security Administration found that the applicant had a severe affective disorder, an anxiety related disorder and a substance addiction, but that she did not have an impairment.  She was granted disability insured status on 
21 December 1983, the date that she stated that she had become unable to work.

On 26 January 1993, the applicant was treated by Northeast Michigan Community Health Services for major recurrent depression of a nonpsychotic variety (although she had been psychotic in the past).  She also had a past history of alcoholism.  Evidence available does not clearly indicate when she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.  However, the evidence does show that on 15 March 1996, Northeast Michigan Community Mental Health Services was treating her for bipolar disorder (chronic anxiety, panic disorder).  Additional available, evidence shows that on 21 October 1997, she was being treated for only bipolar disorder, hypomanic.  The applicant provided no DVA records and none were available for review.

Further, evidence of record indicates that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 1 August 1997.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set 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 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 and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although, an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that she was unable to perform her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  There is no evidence that the applicant had a medical condition that rendered her medically unfit and justified physical disability processing.  

4.  On 21 December 1983, the Social Security Administration found that the applicant had a severe affective disorder, an anxiety related disorder and a substance addiction.  None of these reasons are grounds for a medical discharge.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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

JHK_____  WTM____  JPI_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019411	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990811	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.	A93.21	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.