BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007202 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ ___x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007202 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. Regarding his request for reconsideration, 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 AR20140012400, dated 10 March 2015, denying an upgrade of his discharge. 2. Regarding his new request for a medical discharge, the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 23 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007202 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 previous request to upgrade his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge * as a new issue, change his discharge to a medical discharge 2. The applicant states he was in a car accident in 1982 at Fort Stewart, GA while on active duty. He was diagnosed with conversion disorder. 3. The applicant provides: * Standard Form (SF) 502 (Narrative Summary), dated 20 February 1982 * SF 511 (Vital Signs Record) for the period 13-19 February 1982 * three reference letters * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20140012400, dated 10 March 2015 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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140012400 on 10 March 2015. 2. On 8 July 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-3 for 3 years. 3. An SF 502, dated 20 February 1982, shows the applicant was hospitalized at the U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Stewart, GA from 13-18 February 1982. a. He had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and possibly sustained trauma to the anterior neck. b. He was admitted for observation of his airway as he was unable to speak following the accident. Physical examination further revealed that he exchanged air without stridor or difficulty; however, when asked to enunciate the letter E he was unable to move air. This was interpreted as a conversion reaction due to a lack of his cooperation. Attempts at laryngoscopy (visual exam of the voice box) were unsuccessful. He “was treated with observation and exhibited a complete and miraculous recovery following which he was returned to duty." c. The discharge diagnosis was conversion reaction. 4. On 22 July 1982, he was tried before a special court-martial. He pled guilty and was found guilty of being absent without leave (AWOL) from: * 30 April - 11 May 1982 * 17 May - 25 June 1982 * 6-7 July 1982 5. His sentence included a discharge from the service with a bad conduct discharge. On 30 August 1982, the convening authority approved the sentence. 6. Headquarters, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, GA Special Court-martial Order Number 13, dated 10 February 1983, stated the applicant's sentence had been affirmed and ordered his sentence to be executed. 7. On 10 February 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) as a result of a court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 10 days of net active service. He had 53 days of time lost. 8. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 8 August 1984, the ADRB determined the applicant was properly discharged; however, the characterization of his discharge was determined to be inequitable by the majority of board members. On 3 October 1984, he was advised that his request for discharge upgrade was approved, and the characterization of his discharge was changed to under honorable conditions (general). 9. In an undated statement the applicant's then-wife stated: a. In 1982, they and their two children were involved in an automobile accident. The applicant was passed out in the vehicle and when the fire truck and ambulance came they got him out and they were all transported to the military hospital. b. She and the children were treated and released but the applicant was badly hurt and he remained in the hospital. When they returned to visit the applicant he didn't know she was his wife. He wanted to know where he was and what happened to him. He didn't realize he was in the military. c. As time went by, the applicant did some crazy things. They had two more children, but they were not on good terms with each other. Their marriage just went bad which led to their divorce. d. Still today the applicant doesn't remember a lot of his military life. 10. In an undated statement the applicant's mother-in-law stated the applicant was in a very bad car accident and he was taken to the hospital at Fort Stewart. She felt the applicant didn't receive proper care from the Army. 11. In an undated statement the applicant's sister stated that he was in serious condition after an accident. During that time he was incoherent and not himself. The nurse had said it was due to the medicine. The applicant was never mentally his full self again. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibility, and procedures that apply in determining whether a member is unfit because of physical disability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. a. The medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility evaluates those referred to him and, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refers the member to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Those members who do not meet medical retention standards are referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition. b. Paragraph 3-2b(1) states that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that he or she is fit. This presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, renders the member unfit. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3, section IV, established policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge and provided that a Soldier would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The SF 502, dated 20 February 1982, shows he was hospitalized from 13-18 February 1982 after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. He was unable to speak, but he exchanged air without stridor or difficulty. His inability to enunciate the letter E was interpreted as a conversion reaction due to a lack of his cooperation. He was treated with observation and exhibited a "complete and miraculous recovery following which he was returned to duty." There is no evidence the applicant received further treatment for this condition. 2. There is no evidence he was unable to perform the duties of his rank and military occupational specialty due to this condition. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of his physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendering him unfit, it is presumed he was fit for duty at the time of his discharge. 3. The ADRB upgraded his discharge from bad conduct to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 4. The applicant went AWOL on three occasions and he had a total of 53 days of time lost. His service generally did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007202 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007202 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2