ABCMR Memorandum of 	AR2002078744
Consideration (cont.)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           28 October 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078744

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | | Chairperson
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | | Member
| Ms. Marla J. Troup | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was sexually abused and raped by a sergeant during advanced individual training (AIT) and was too ashamed to come forward prior to this time.  He also states that he has suffered from a bipolar disorder all his life.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 31 October 1979.  He completed basic combat training and AIT with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Preparation Specialist). 

Upon completion of AIT, the applicant received orders to Fort Meade, Maryland.  While enroute he went AWOL (absent without leave), 29 April 1980.  The applicant turned himself into military authorities at Fort McClellan, Alabama on 29 May 1980.  He was returned to Ft. Meade on 16 June 1980.  

On 20 June 1980, the applicant again went AWOL.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities in Anniston, Alabama and returned to military control on 6 January 1981.

On 13 January 1981 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant and he was afforded physical and mental status examinations (MSE).  The MSE, conducted 14 January 1981, found the applicant to be depressed but fully alert with normal thought content.  He was determined to be mentally responsible, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in any proposed administrative proceedings.  He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.

After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, on 16 January 1981.  He acknowledged that he was guilty as charged or guilty of a lesser-included offense for which a punitive discharge was also authorized.  He acknowledged that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions that would deprive him of all benefits as a veteran.  He submitted a statement to the effect that he could not adjust to the Army.  He reported that he was so unhappy with the situation that he had attempted suicide while in AIT.

The applicant was placed in excess leave, on 16 January 1981, pending review of his request for discharge.

On 17 February 1981, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and that his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 12 March 1981.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he had 8 months and 26 days of creditable service, 230 days of lost time, and 56 days of excess leave.

A review of the applicant’s service medical records does not reveal any complaints of or treatment for any type of mental, psychiatric or psychological conditions while on active duty.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

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.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.

2.  The applicant has provided no documentation or other evidence to support his contention that the behavior that led to his discharge was the result of sexual abuse while attending AIT.  

3.  Further, there is no evidence in the available records which would indicate that the applicant complained of, suffered from, or was treated by medical personnel for any nervous condition of any type while he was serving on active duty; that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong; or that he was unable to adhere to the right.

4.  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 this requirement.

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

__RJW___  __LDS__  ___MJT_  DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
	Director, Army Board for Correction
	of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002078744
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20031028
TYPE OF DISCHARGE |
DATE OF DISCHARGE |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | Up grade
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |