MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 November 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059774

         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
Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder soon after he was discharged. His depression made him mentally unable to function and affected his duty performance. He should have been properly diagnosed while on active duty and received treatment and rehabilitation. Even his overweight condition was a sign of his major depression. He did nothing dishonorable and deserved an honorable discharge. In support of his application he submits copies of his administrative discharge and other documents from his military records. He also provides copies of numerous civilian medical and clinical evaluations

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

He served on active duty as a photographer from 6 June 1968 through 14 March 1971. He was separated in the pay grade of E-4 and transferred to the Army Reserve. He again served on active duty as a photographer and mail clerk from 24 March 1972 through 30 December 1974. He was again separated from active duty in the pay grade of E-4.

He enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 6 October 1976, as an air defense artillery crewman. He was discharged from the ARNG on 11 November 1976 for immediate enlistment in the Regular Army. He entered active duty for the third time on 1 February 1977, with over 5 ½ years prior active duty.

The applicant was trained as a food service specialist and served in Germany and Fort Benning, Georgia. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 October 1981 as a hospital food service cook.

On 16 August 1982, the applicant’s commissioned officer supervisor requested disciplinary action from the unit commander based on the applicant’s poor duty performance and his failure to improve after numerous counseling sessions. The attached counseling forms were from 4 November 1981 through 5 August 1982. The applicant had been counseled for late for duty, improper food preparation, improper meal and cash accounting, unsatisfactory progress in the weight reduction program, and poor food service supervision.

The available records show that he was enrolled in the weight control program on 3 June 1982, and by 30 July 1982, he had gained 4 pounds.





Between 16 and 20 August 1982, the commander notified the applicant of contemplated separation for unsuitability. The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf.

The commander forwarded his recommendation that the applicant be separated for unsuitability based on his apathy, lack of motivation, defective attitude, and failure to expend his effort constructively. Included in the recommendation was a Report of Mental Status evaluation, which stated that the applicant’s behavior was normal. He was alert and oriented. His mood was unremarkable; his thinking clear, and thought content normal. He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation. There are no military clinical treatment records in the records available to the Board.

On 26 August 1982, the separation authority approved separation with a General Discharge Certificate. Effective 8 September 1982 the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability. He had a total of 11 years, 1 month, and 24 days active duty.

The applicant provides numerous civilian psychological clinical records covering the period February 1983 through January 1984, and the period December 1994 through December 1998. The resulting diagnosis revealed atypical anxiety, environmental stress, or a mixed personality disorder. Others deferred making any specific diagnosis but did rule out schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or any major affective disorder. Frequent clinical statements concluded that his symptoms were more related to psychosocial and interpersonal problems rather than depression. His frequent demonstration of apathy was also noted.

The applicant also provides a medication chart, which shows the medication prescribed for him over the past 16 years. The chart describes the treated symptoms and side effects of the drugs. Two of the drugs listed are for anxiety, two are for depression, and one is for psychotic disorders.

The applicant’s available records also show that he enlisted in the ARNG after his separation from active duty. He served for over 11 months as a tactical communications chief and was transferred at his request to the Army Reserve on 17 September 1985. His retirement points records also show that he was a member of a Reserve Component unit from September 1994 through December 1996 and attended unit training.






A review of the applicant’s evaluation history from 1977 through 1982 shows a varied history of poor performance in 1977 to excellent performance in 1979 with the same rating officials. Comments in a 1980 rating mention his dedication and responsibility to duty and his leadership skills. A later report in 1980 comments on his outstanding performance, military bearing, and appearance. A 1981 report says he is an outstanding NCO who ranks with the best.

The applicant’s final evaluation says he had an earlier period of lack of interest in his duties but he had shown recent marked improvement. He had improved his attitude and performance. The evaluation also mentioned his enrollment in the overweight program with little or no improvement.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers or to submit statements in his own behalf, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general discharge.

2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3. The fact that the applicant demonstrated occasional apathy toward his duties and an inability to control his weight does not demonstrate that he was suffering from clinical depression that should have been treated by medical personnel. There is no evidence of record, and none submitted by the applicant, that his medical treatment on active duty was inadequate.

4. The applicant’s civilian treatment records appear to present an idiopathic depression, without agreement on a fixed cause, and sporadic success with various drugs. They do not establish that the applicant was physically unfit while he was on active duty.




5. Subsequent to his separation for unsuitability the applicant satisfactorily served in Reserve Component units with no record of indiscipline.

6. 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.

7. 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

__fe___ ___kf___ ___be___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059774
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20011108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820908
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 13
DISCHARGE REASON	A43.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.02
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.