MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 18 December 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060027

         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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge was unjust because he had been assaulted, was not afforded any counsel at all, and because he has helped several people in his community since his discharge.

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

He enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 20 July 1982 for a period of 3 years and training as an administrative specialist. He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 7 February 1983 for duty as a postal clerk. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 20 July 1983.

On 12 January 1984, the applicant was hospitalized at Landstuhl Regional Army Hospital for observation in connection with his suspected involvement in incidents of arson on 10 January 1984.

On 25 January 1984, the applicant was charged with using a telephone to convey damage to government property (bomb threat), destroying and damaging mail, destroying and burning a mail truck.

He was transferred to a March Air Force Base, California hospital on 19 February 1984 with transfer diagnoses of “Atypical Psychosis and a borderline personality disorder”. He was then sent to Letterman Army Medical Center (LAMC), California on 27 February 1984, with a transfer diagnosis of “schizophrenia, paranoid type”.

On 29 February 1984, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) met and recommended that the applicant appear before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The MEB also determined that the applicant had a history of mental illness prior to his entry into the service, which he did not disclose at the time of his enlistment.

The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended on 12 June 1984, that the charges be dismissed due to the applicant’s medical condition. The Commander, LAMC dismissed the charges on 28 June 1984 and the Chief of Psychiatry recommended that he be watched carefully because of his destructive nature.

On 10 August 1984, he was charged with three specifications of arson, two charges of setting the hospital on fire and the previous charge of January 1984.

The general court-martial convening authority directed on 20 August 1984, that a sanity board be conducted. The board was conducted and on 24 August 1984, determined that the applicant was competent to stand trial.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trail by court-martial. He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that if his discharge was approved, he would report immediately to a civilian mental health center upon his release from the Army.

The SJA recommended that the applicant be referred to a civilian mental health facility and coordination was made by medical personnel to do so.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 21 December 1984 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 December 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 2 years, 5 months and 5 days of total active service.

On 7 October 1985, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended at that time that his discharge was improper because it was based on one isolated incident and that he was under psychiatric care at the time. The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged based on his voluntary request and denied his application on 8 September 1986.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the 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 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 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.

2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit. The applicant clearly indicated that he understood the implications attached to a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Additionally, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.

4. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

5. The applicant’s contention that he was not afforded counsel also appears to be without merit. The evidence of record clearly shows that he was afforded counsel in every instance in which charges were preferred against him.

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

___jm___ ___inw __ ___tl____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060027
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/18
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/12/24
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH10
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 689	144.7000/A70.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.