APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be corrected to show that his discharge was based on a physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was sick during active duty and still is.

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

On 21 September 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).

During the period 7 March 1973-29 July 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on six occasions, for being absent from his place of duty, 6 times; absent without leave,      1 time; disobeying lawful orders, 3 times; and violation of a general regulation, 1 time.

During the period 20 November 1973-22 April 1974, the applicant, a command referral, attended an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program and was declared a failure.

On 24 January 1974, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent from his place of duty on 26 and 27 December 1973.  His sentence was a reduction, a forfeiture and restriction.

During the period 26 February-13 March 1974, he was issued a temporary physical profile for sore feet and the period     8 April-8 June 1974, for pseudofolliculitis barbae.

On 18 July 1974, his unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for possession of heroin on 7 July; possession of marijuana on 12 July 1974; possession of amphetamines on   12 July 1974; attempted sale of heroin on 7 July 1974; escape from lawful custody; and, assaulting a military policeman and of his rights.

On 22 July 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and that he had no desire to perform further military service.

On 8 August 1974, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation with a 111111A physical profile.

On 29 August 1974, the appropriate authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a undesirable discharge (UD) be issued.

On 13 November 1974, he was discharged, with a UD, in pay grade E-1, under the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates that he had 2 years, 1 month and 2 days of creditable service and 19 days of lost time.

On 18 August 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper but not equitable.  The ADRB upgraded his discharge to general.

On 5 March 1997, the Office of the Surgeon General opined (COPY ATTACHED) that the applicant met medical retention standards at the time of his separation.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A GD was normally issued.


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 applicant’s separation was conducted in accordance with regulation in effect at the time.

3.  The applicant voluntarily elected to be discharged in this manner and should not now be allowed to change his mind.

4.  There is no evidence of record of any medical condition which would entitle the applicant to a physical disability discharge, since he met medical retention standards at the time of his separation.

5.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director