APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his record be corrected to show that he was discharged by reason of physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his medical condition has deteriorated since he was discharged.

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

On 6 January 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-3.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 effective     13 May 1981.

On 3 August 1981, a mental status evaluation indicated that he possessed a historic personality disorder and recommended he be considered for discharge.

On 31 August 1981, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 27 August 1981.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, restriction and extra duty.

On 3 September 1981, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 28 September 1981, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend his separation under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b, for unsuitability - personality disorder and of his rights.

On 29 September 1981, the applicant, with legal counsel, responded to the commander by waiving consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers and legal counsel and by declining to make statements in his own behalf.

On 29 September 1981, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge with an honorable discharge (HD).

On 22 October 1981, the appropriate separation authority approved his discharge and directed he receive an HD. 

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.  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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  The evidence in this case does not support his contention that there was an error or injustice in his discharge proceedings.

4.  In view of the above, 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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director