2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge or a medical discharge.   

3.  The applicant's military records show that he was born on 18 July 1962.  He completed 12 years of formal education. On 14 March 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 62 (Category III).  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 151K10 (Plumber).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.


4.  On 21 November 1987, the applicant was notified that his father had died from a heart attack and 3 months later, on 19 February 1988, the applicant was notified that his mother had died.

5.  On 21 March 1988, the applicant was reported for being absent without leave (AWOL).  On 2 May 1988, the applicant surrendered to military authorities.`    
  
6.  On 6 May 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 March to 1 May 1988.

7.  On 9 May 1988, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, found the applicant mildly depressed and paranoid about events that happen to him in the past.  The psychiatrist also stated, that the applicant was not suicidal or homicidal and advised the applicant to seek counseling after his discharge from military service.   He was found mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and able to adhere to the right; he was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.   

8.  On 10 May 1988, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  
The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

9.  On 3 June 1988, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  
On 3 August 1988, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 3 years, 3 months and 9 days of creditable active service and had 42 days of lost time.

10.  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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

11.  On 17 November 1988, 3 months after being discharged from service, the applicant jumped in front of an L train in an attempt to commit suicide.  The applicant sustained multiple injuries from the L train incident, to include a traumatic amputation of his left arm, fractures to the right elbow and right hand and a large injury to his left buttocks. 

12.  On 11 May 1992, the Veterans Administration (VA) awarded the applicant 100 percent service connected disability compensation for major psychotic depression, but deferred their decision on service connection for injuries received in the train accident.  On 5 May 1993, the VA, determined that the injuries that he received when he jumped in front of an L train were the result of his own willful misconduct, the VA denied service connection.  The applicant nonconcurred with the decision and filed a Substantive Appeal.  On 2 September 1993, the VA, determined that he was insane at the time of the train accident and determined that the injuries were not the result of his own willful misconduct.
   
13. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

14.  On 6 January 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  From a purely legal standpoint, the applicant’s discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.

2.  While the conduct which led to the applicant’s separation cannot be condoned, the applicant’s overall quality of service was flawless until the unfortunate death of his parents.  Consideration should have been give to the applicant’s mental state due to the recent death of his parents.  

3.  Although, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general discharge, it would also be fair and equitable to upgrade the applicant’s general discharge to a fully honorable discharge in consideration of the magnitude of the applicant’s problems before and after discharge.
     
4.  In view of the foregoing; it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. 

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:                

      a.  that the individual concerned was honorably discharged from the Army on 3 August 1988, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of service;  

      b. that the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 3 August 1988, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by him; and 
      
      c.  that the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections; and 

      
      d.  that so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
 
BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON