IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009321 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009321 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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 to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2001061591, dated 21 February 2002, and Docket Number AR2002083159, dated 20 March 2003. ____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009321 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 requests to change his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to show he was medically discharged. 2. The applicant states: * his medical condition made him do and sign things when he was younger that he would not normally do * he recently discovered he should have been discharged after his first stroke 3. The applicant provides extracts of his medical records. 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 AR2001061591 on 21 February 2002 and Docket Number AR2002083159 on 20 March 2003. 2. The applicant provided new medical evidence which was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration at this time. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1974. 4. On 14 October 1984, he was hospitalized at the Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC, for complaints of left-sided numbness, weakness, and slurred speech. 5. On 17 October 1984, a computerized tomography scan of his brain was performed and revealed a small focal area of cortical infarct in the right frontal region. He was diagnosed with the following conditions: * transient ischemic attacks with neurological deficit, resolved * probable right cortical cerebral infarct 6. On 28 October 1984, he was medically evacuated to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (now known as Walter Reed National Military Medical Center) for further treatment. 7. On 12 November 1984 after a series of tests and treatment, he was medically evacuated to the Womack Army Medical Center for follow-up care and/or treatment. 8. On 11 November 1984, he was issued a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) that shows: * he had no assignment limitations * he was fit for military duty * his physical defect was listed as "right posterior frontal CVA [cerebrovascular accident] with resolution of symptomatology" * his levels of functional capacity were rated as follows –  * P – physical capacity or stamina – 1 * U – upper extremities – 1 * L – lower extremities – 1 * H – hearing and ears – 1 * E – eyes – 1 * S – psychiatric – 1 9. DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show his duty status changes as follows: * 25 November 1985 – present for duty to absent without leave (AWOL) * 24 December 1985 – AWOL to dropped from the rolls * 6 January 1986 – dropped from the rolls to attached/present for duty (he surrendered to military control) 10. On 8 January 1986, he declined a separation physical examination. 11. On 15 January 1986, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 25 November 1985 to January 1986. On the same date, he signed a statement admitting he was guilty of being AWOL from 25 January 1985 to 6 January 1986. 12. On 16 January 1986 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request, he admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He acknowledged he freely made his request for discharge and understood that if he received an UOTHC discharge: * he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits * he would be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran's Administration (currently known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) * he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life 13. His commander stated there did not appear to be any reasonable grounds to believe that he was mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal at the time of his misconduct. His chain of command recommended approval of his request with an UOTHC discharge. 14. On 28 February 1986, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed his reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1. 15. On 28 March 1986, he was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows his rank/grade as private/E-1. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 16. He provided medical records showing he suffered a second stroke in 1990. 17. On 9 December 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 18. His records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he had a medical condition warranting processing through the Disability Evaluation System. His records are also void of evidence that shows he was unable to perform his duties after his stroke. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), then in effect, provided information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. a.  Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement) provided the standards for medical fitness for retention and separation, including retirement. Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter were referred for disability processing. b.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) provided a system for classifying individuals according to functional abilities and was used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual was capable of performing and if reclassification action was warranted. Four numerical designations (1-4) were used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in the six PULHES factors. Numerical designator 1 indicated an individual was fit. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence 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, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for reconsideration of his earlier requests to change his UOTHC discharge to a medical discharge was carefully considered. 2. Although his medical records show he suffered a stroke in October 1984, he was not found unfit for duty. He was assigned a physical profile of 1-1-1-1-1-1 and he was returned to duty. 3. His records are void of and he failed to provide any evidence showing he had a medical condition warranting processing through the Disability Evaluation System. His records are also void of evidence showing he was unable to perform his duties after his stroke. 4. Although he provided medical evidence that he suffered a second stroke in 1990, this medical condition occurred after his separation from active duty. 5. He was AWOL and charges were preferred against him. After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights, he voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also declined a separation physical examination. 6. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009321 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009321 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2