MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 6 September 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001057724

         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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: That his company commander committed perjury
during his interview for pre-trial confinement, that he was coerced into signing
his discharge, that he reacted to a tuberculin skin test, and was not given a
physical examination, and mental evaluation prior to his discharge. He also states that perjury was committed by his commander, when he stated under
oath that he had a personality disorder, when in fact he had an adjustment disorder. He further states that his request for discharge was a form of coercion used by his commander and military attorney, that if he did not sign it, he would remain in confinement. His request was signed on 20 December 1999 and he was released from confinement on 6 January 2000. In support of his application he submits a copy of a personal letter, a copy of DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), copies of his service medical records, and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he initially enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 6 December 1993 as a pharmacy specialist (91Q). He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) and was released from ADT on 27 July 1994 and returned to control of the USAR. He
was assigned to a troop program unit.

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1998 as a unit supply specialist (92Y).

On 12 August 1998, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct. The psychiatrist stated that symptoms presented by the applicant were amenable to rehabilitative efforts, brief treatment, and a rehabilitative transfer. The psychiatrist recommended that the command consider a rehabilitative transfer as a preferred course of action rather than
discharge and that it was likely that he would resume this level of function through a transfer and adequate rehabilitation. The applicant had indicated
that he was motivated towards remaining on active duty and resolving his difficulties. The psychiatrist concluded by stating that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared to participate within administrative proceedings.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on three specifications, for disobeying a lawful order, for four specifications of assault, for being disrespectful in language, and for wrongfully communicating a threat.



On 8 December 1999, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He stated that he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He also stated that under no circumstances
did he desire further rehabilitation, for he had no desire to perform further military service. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.

He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he requested that his discharge be approved and that he was sorry for what he
had done. He also stated that he was aware that he deserved a bad discharge for his actions, that he was willing to accept an other than honorable conditions discharge for the consequences of his actions, and that he be allowed to be separated this way.

On 5 January 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and dismissed the charges and specifications without prejudice. The applicant was discharged on 8 January 2000. He had a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 19 days of creditable service.

Medical evidence provided by the applicant shows that he was administered a tuberculin skin test on 8 November 1999, and was read on 10 November 1999, with a positive reaction. The applicant was advised to take the drug Isoniazid (INH) for a period of 6 months in order to keep the disease inactive. There is no documentation in the available records to show that the applicant requested or waived a separation physical examination.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 4 April 2000. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 9 June 2000.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his commander committed perjury during his interview for pre-trial confinement when he stated that he
had a personality disorder; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this
contention.

2. The applicant contends that he was coerced into signing his discharge, and that this form of coercion was used by his commander and attorney, who informed him that if he did not sign it, he would remain in confinement. The
applicant signed his request, dated 8 December 1999, and stated that he was making his request at his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.

3. The applicant also contends that he reacted to a tuberculin skin test and was not given a physical examination prior to his discharge; however, medical evidence provided by the applicant shows that he received a positive reaction from the tuberculin skin test and proper medication was administered by competent medical authorities to keep the disease inactive. There is no
evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was administered a physical examination prior to his discharge.

4. The applicant further contends that he was not given a mental evaluation prior to his discharge. However, evidence of record shows that a mental evaluation was conducted on 12 August 1998, which diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct.

5. 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.

6. The applicant was properly charged with multiple acts of misconduct which led to his discharge which are too serious to be excused or to warrant relief. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.






7. 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.

8. 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

__ls___ ___jm___ __mm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057724
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010906
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010108
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C, 10
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.