MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063029

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to a medical discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was diagnosed with an obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety, which should have resulted in his being processed for separation through medical channels. 

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

On 3 November 2000, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  The highest rank and pay grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3) and his record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the events surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) in the record that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation and which identifies the authority, character, and reason for his discharge.  

The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was discharged on 14 August 2001, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, after completing just 9 months and 12 days of active military service.  

The applicant’s record contains a copy of a Report of Medical Examination 
(SF 88), dated 17 July 2001, that was completed on him during his separation processing.  This document confirms that, although there was an abnormal psychiatric finding related to anxiety, after completing a psychological evaluation medical officials determined that the applicant was medically qualified for retention/separation.

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 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 is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40 prescribes the policy and procedure for the Army Disability System.  Paragraph 4-3 states, in pertinent part, that a member may not be referred for or continue disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision that authorizes a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should have been processed for separation by a medical board based on his being diagnosed with a compulsive disorder and social anxiety; however, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, a member may not be referred for or continue physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision that authorizes a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with an punitive discharge.  Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have had to admit guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ and in the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  Further, the applicant’s medical record gives no indication of a medical condition incurred on active duty that was so severe as to render him medically unfit for retention on active duty prior to his being processed for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Additionally, his separation physical examination confirms that he was medically cleared for separation by competent medical authority.  Therefore, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to support a conclusion that he should have been processed for separation through medical channels.  
5.  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.

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

__SLP__  __SK __  __EJA___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063029	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/08/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Court-Martial 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  177	108.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.