| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by changing the reason for his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he defers to his counsel.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant was treated unfairly. His mental problems started while he was in the service and he is still under treatment for mental problems. He should have been separated because of his mental problems and not just treated as a “rowdy soldier.” Counsel submits a 21February 2001 letter from a civilian mental health agency, a 1998 mental health care plan up-date and a 1984 psychiatric evaluation.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999032774) on 1 August 2000.
Counsels submissions are new argument that requires Board consideration.
The 21 February 2001 letter indicates that the mental health agency forwarded a 1981 initial evaluation, the 1998 care plan up-date and the 1984 psychiatric evaluation to counsel.
The care plan update states that the applicant has been known to the clinic since 1980.
The 26 March 1984 psychiatric evaluation indicates that the applicant was being evaluated for a hospitalization program. It relates, in part, that the applicant had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and poly-substance abuse. He had been involuntarily hospitalized in June 1983 and claimed drug and alcohol abstinence since then.
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention or Separation) provides, in pertinent part, that an enlisted soldier on whom elimination action that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions has been started may not be processed for physical disability processing. Such a case is to be referred to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. The general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) may authorize physical disability processing based only on finding that the disability is the cause or a substantial contributing cause of the misconduct or when specific circumstances warrant disability rather than administrative separation. This authority may not be delegated. A copy of the determination must be entered into the case file when it is forwarded.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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. Prior to the ignition of the elimination proceedings the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible. He was able to tell right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the elimination process.
2. Prior to discharge he underwent a separation physical examination. In the medical history which he provided for that examination he denied any problem with depression, excessive worry or nervousness. He was found qualified for separation.
3. The applicant was evaluated and no mental or emotional incapacity was found. He was examined and found qualified for separation. He was being eliminated for separation and could not have been separated for medical reasons without an explicit finding by the GCMCA for which there is no available evidence of record.
4. The applicant’s long history of mental illness is noted as is his history of poly-substance abuse. However, in the absence of evidence that at the time of the applicants separation or the behavior that led to the separation he was so
impaired by mental, emotional illness that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right the contention of mental health problems do not demonstrate a error or an injustice in the discharge. This is especially true in light of the applicant’s in-service and post-service history of substance abuse.
5. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__INW __ __FNE__ __GJW__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001054176 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010809 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Ch. 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A67.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | 108.04 |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059524C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS : In effect, reconsideration of his application to correct his records by purging all references to his courts-martial from his records, reinstating his rank and granting him physical disability retirement. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003476
On 23 August 2011, he received his first mental status evaluation based on a proposed separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12c (Misconduct- Commission of a serious offense). The separation authority directed the applicant be processed for administrative separation for misconduct and discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2) with a general discharge. b....
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8809281
He submits 1994 medical reports and evaluations from the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital describing his alcohol and drug addictions and other mental and emotional problems. He was being processed for separation under conditions that could have led to discharge under other than honorable conditions and was not eligible for physical disability processing. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052811C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant includes a letter to the VA, continuing in this manner, and a letter to the President, stating that this Board denied his application, and stating that he had psychiatric problems. It also shows that the Army Discharge Review Board in 1992 and again in 1997 denied his request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8500312
APPLICANT STATES : In effect that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevented him from following orders. The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and his parents’ concerns are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007093C070208
Evidence of record shows that on 24 January 1986, the Social Security Administration hearing considered medical evidence and found that the applicant was disabled due to paranoid schizophrenia. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant was found mentally qualified for separation by a competent military psychiatrist during his separation proceedings.
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00255
Mbr admitted that one of the routine activities they do in their get-togethers is to use marijuana. Pt does not want admission to hospital nor think it is indicated as pt does not appear to be an eminent treat to self or others. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was neither proper nor equitable (D and E).In reviewing the record, the Board noted both the applicant’s enlistment waiver...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065026C070421
It was prepared after the FSM’s death based on medical records, and interviews with the FSM’s wife (the applicant in this case) and his chain of command. The psychological autopsy states that the FSM had been admitted to MAMC on 27 September 1998 for suicidal ideation. The applicant was notified of the FSM’s AWOL status by a letter from the FSM’s commander to the applicant, dated 23 November 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052466C070420
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03010-00
” He was found fully fit for duty, and clinic for psychological testing. patient’s medical record. According to the as was “likely” thought to be “chronic and evaluation were diagnoses of somatization fit for duty, and the No on 16 OCTOBER psychological d. SF 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, from USS Enterprise, dated 05 APR 1982, was sea_” Per this report documented results of a psychological evaluation per the request of the ship evaluation of a “possible life at examination at...