Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705681
Original file (9705681.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : That he was and is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He was taking a lot of medications and didn’t know what he was doing when he went absent without leave (AWOL).

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

He was born on 20 April 1958. He completed 11 years of formal education but also earned his high school GED. On 29 June 1977 he entered the Delayed Entry Program. On 20 July 1977 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

On 12 January 1979, the applicant was evaluated by the Mental Health Clinic at Ft Clayton, Panama Canal Zone. The evaluating physician noted “his behavior was grossly bizarre but in a contrived sort of way,” “when the inappropriateness of his behavior was called to his attention, he stopped,” and “he was extremely manipulative.” The physician recommended that the applicant be air evacuated to the United States for further evaluation, treatment and disposition.

On 25 January 1979, the applicant arrived at Ft Gordon, GA; on 26 January 1979, he went AWOL and remained AWOL until 6 February 1980.

On 7 February 1980, a Navy physician diagnosed the applicant with “inadequate personality.”

On 14 February 1980, the Army sent the applicant for a mental status evaluation. The evaluating physician found no evidence of mental illness; however, because of his history of schizophrenia in Panama the physician referred him to Psychiatry.

On 27 February 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with one specification of
AWOL for the period 7 February 1979 - 6 February 1980.

On 29 February 1980, the applicant was evaluated by the Chief of Community Mental Health who found “no mental disorder.”

On or about 12 March 1980, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 1 April 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 23 April 1980, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 1 year and 9 months of creditable active service and had 369 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.

 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Competent military medical authority examined the applicant prior to his separation and found no mental illness or mental disorder.

3. 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705681C070209

    Original file (9705681C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 February 1980, a Navy physician diagnosed the applicant with “inadequate personality.” On 14 February 1980, the Army sent the applicant for a mental status evaluation. The evaluating physician found no evidence of mental illness; however, because of his history of schizophrenia in Panama the physician referred him to Psychiatry. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005794C070205

    Original file (20060005794C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 July 1983, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with a medical or mental condition prior to his discharge on 22 April 1982. His record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel; therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051287C070420

    Original file (2001051287C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    She states that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the FSM’s request for an upgrade of his discharge based upon no requirement for a medical examination. The FSM submitted a request for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board, and it was denied on 17 February 1983. The Board concludes that the FSM was medically fit for the approval authority to accept his request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103070C070208

    Original file (2004103070C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The application submitted in this case is dated 26 November 2003. Accordingly, on 21 December 1981, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He completed the form twice and both times he indicated that he had never been treated for a mental condition.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014659

    Original file (20080014659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 May 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge. The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015008

    Original file (20140015008.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 November 2001, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of an under other than honorable discharge. His original DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072759C070403

    Original file (2002072759C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to either an honorable or medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should have been discharged by reason of medical disability because he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and was never offered any help for his illness.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104989C070208

    Original file (2004104989C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. The applicant's failure to timely file her request for correction of her military records should be excused because of her mental condition. On 12 February 1980, the applicant went AWOL from her unit in Germany. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021130

    Original file (20140021130.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, it appears court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 24 June to 5 August 1980 (43 days) and that he subsequently submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. His record contains a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 7 August 1980, wherein it stated, "Service member...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000582

    Original file (20150000582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his character and reason for discharge be upgraded from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) in lieu of trial by court-martial discharge to an honorable discharge due to physical disability. Also on 8 October 1980, after consulting with counsel and being advised of this rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for...