MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 APRIL 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079434

	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	
	Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. 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 records be corrected by changing the characterization and reason for his separation.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been honorably discharged for the convenience of the Government under secretarial authority, or discharged for medical reasons because of his psychiatric problems.  In support of his request the applicant submits copies of a mental status evaluation and a psychological report from 1963, and a decision on his claim for social security benefits, dated 22 January 2002.  

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

The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 November 1967 for a period of 2 years.

Between January 1968 and August 1969 the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on numerous occasions, accumulating over 300 days of lost time.

On 8 April 1968 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of 3 specification of being AWOL from 20 February to 21 February 1968, 6 April to 8 April 1968, and 10 April to 26 April 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 7 days, and a forfeiture.

On 10 June 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 16 May to 20 May 1968.  He was sentenced to 20 days confinement at hard labor.

On 18 October 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 27 June to 26 September 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture.

On 26 August 1969 he was charged with 2 specifications of being AWOL from 
15 April to 6 May 1969, and 20 May to 13 August 1969.  

On 29 August 1969, a medical evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

On 6 September 1969, after charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of an undesirable discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He declined to submit statements on his own behalf.

On 3 October 1969, the appropriate separation authority approved the request and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.  On 21 October 1969 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 1 year, 1 month, and 21 days of creditable service and over 
300 days of lost time.

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.  

Documentation provided by the applicant indicates he was diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia in March 1963 when he was almost 15 years of age.  He was hospitalized on 11 March 1963 and discharged on 4 June 1963, with the annotation that his condition has improved. 

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders the essential features of Schizophrenia are the same in children as they are in adults, and are a mixture of characteristic signs and symptoms (both positive and negative) that have been present for a significant portion of time during a 
1 month period (or for a shorter time if successfully treated), with some signs of the disorder persisting for at least 6 months.  The onset of Schizophrenia typically occurs between the late teens and the mid-30s.  The characteristic symptoms of Schizophrenia involve a range of cognitive and emotional dysfunctions that include perception, inferential thinking, language and communication, behavioral monitoring, affect, fluency and productivity of thought and speech, hedonic capacity, volition and drive, and attention.  No single symptom is pathognomonic of Schizophrenia; the diagnosis involves the recognition of a constellation of signs and symptoms associated with impaired occupational or social functioning.  There are five subtypes (paranoid type, disorganized type, catatonic type, undifferentiated type, and residual type).  The diagnosis of a particular subtype is based on the clinical picture that occasioned the most recent evaluation or admission to clinical care and may therefore change over time.

The applicant applied for disability insurance benefits from the Social Security Administration, which determined that he was entitled to a period of disability commencing on 3 June 1981 and ending on 31 December 1983.  During the period of disability the applicant had the physical residual functional capacity to 

perform work at all exertional levels, but was unable to meet the mental demands of work because of marked deficits in concentration, persistence and pace.  The applicant’s entitlement to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, and eligibility for supplemental security income ended effective February 1984, the end of the second calendar month after the month in which the disability ceased.

The January 2002, Social Security Administration’s decision document states that on 30 April 1963, the applicant underwent intelligence testing.  On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, the applicant obtained a verbal IQ of 80, performance IQ of 69, and full scale IQ of 72, placing him in the borderline range.  However, because of the variability on test scores, ranging from superior scores in some areas to highly defective performance in others, it was felt that the applicant was not functioning at his true capacity at that time.  The applicant obtained a GED in 1982, and thereafter an Associate’s degree in Human Service.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  While the applicant provides evidence of hospitalization and treatment for “Childhood Schizophrenia” when he was a teenager, he provides no evidence that the condition was the basis for his misconduct, nor is there evidence that his condition was mentioned or used in defense of his misconduct.  

3.  The applicant’s discharge and characterization of service were appropriate considering the frequent incidents of misconduct during his period of active duty.

4.  His DD Form 214 accurately reflects the appropriate separation authority and narrative reason for his separation.  

5.  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 that requirement.

6.  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

__FNE __  __LE ___  __MJNT _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079434	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030410	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.