BOARD DATE: 1 November 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007777 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier petition to the Board requesting an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, all of the information related to his service was not included in the original application. 3. The applicant provides a VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals) and a disability evaluation examination in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100022809, on 3 March 2011. 2. During the original review of the case, the Board determined the applicant’s separation action was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural error which would have jeopardized his rights. 3. The applicant provides a disability examination completed on 7 February 2002 which indicated he suffers from “polyarthralgia” with no definite classification except some signs of degenerative osteoarthritis. It also indicated he suffered some memory loss and has a personality disorder because his social contacts are minimal. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army 13 January 1976, and he was advanced to private first class/E-3 on 25 August 1977; this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. He was reduced to private/E-2 and private/E-1 for cause on 8 February 1978 and 16 March 1979, respectively. 5. The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. His disciplinary history includes acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on five separate occasions between 17 February 1978 and 26 March 1979; a special court-martial conviction on 13 June 1977; and a general court-martial conviction on 5 June 1978. 6. The applicant’s record is void of any medical treatment records indicating he suffered from any disabling mental or physical condition that would have supported separation processing through medical channels. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 31 May 1979, shows the examiner found the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and he was able to adhere to the right. He also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceeding and he met medical retention standards. The examiner further indicated the applicant suffered from no significant psychiatric disease that would have supported separation processing through medical channels. 7. On 23 July 1979, the unit commander notified the applicant action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of a pattern of misconduct. On 3 August 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of those rights. 8. On 9 August 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. On 14 August 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s reconsideration request and the new evidence submitted has been carefully considered. However, there remains insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The evidence the applicant submitted shows the medical conditions he suffered from as of that date in 2005; it provides no evidence related to the applicant’s medical fitness for duty at the time of his discharge. The medical evidence of record confirms the applicant was suffering from no disabling medical or mental conditions that would have supported separation processing through medical channels at the time of his discharge. 4. Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant showing any error or injustice in his discharge processing, there remains an insufficient evidentiary basis to amend the original decision in this case, and/or to grant the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x___ ___x_____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100022809, dated 3 March 2011. _______ _x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007777 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007777 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1