MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 11 APRIL 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001065358

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson
Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge, which he refers to as a dishonorable discharge, be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because the sexual and physical abuse he suffered as a child impacted on his ability to serve appropriately in the military. He states that since his father's death in 1994 he has suffered emotional illnesses and began recalling events from his past. He notes he was able to find clinical records from his childhood, which indicated he was mentally ill and seen by health professionals. However, his father refused to take him for follow-up treatment and he believes as a result of that failure his whole life has been affected. He states that he has been hospitalized on several occasions and has been diagnosed with several disorders and suffered from alcoholism. He states that he was able to "make it threw basic training easily" because he was away from alcohol, but when he returned home after training he had access to alcohol again. He notes he was not "defying the US Army [he] was defying [his] mental, physical and sexual abuser…." Now that he understands this he wishes he could reenlist and do it all over again. He states that to continue to deny his request to upgrade his discharge "would be holding [his] mental illness along with his disease of alcoholism against [him]." In support of his request he submits clinical notes from the Westfield Area Child Guidance Center, psychiatric progress notes from 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and discharge summaries from the Noble Hospital Partial Hospitalization Program dated in 2000 and 2001. The applicant also recently provided a copy of a change in duty status form noting a soldier’s change in duty from "hospital" to "present for duty." He states the document shows he was also hospitalized while in basic training. However, the document pertains to another soldier, not the applicant.

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

He enlisted in the Army Reserve on 26 January 1981 and completed almost 3 months of active duty for training (ADT). He was honorably discharged from his ADT period in April 1981 and received an honorable discharge. At the time of his initial enlistment he was 19 years of age, had completed 11 years of formal education, and had a GT (general technical) score of 99. He subsequently enlisted in the Regular Army, for a duty assignment in Europe, on 28 May 1981. His May 1981 enlistment information indicates he had successfully completed his high school GED (general education diploma) and increased his GT score to 105. In fact, all but three of his aptitude area scores were over 100. The remaining three were scores in the 90s.

Two days after his 28 May enlistment he departed AWOL (absent without leave) and remained so until 15 June 1981. He was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Two weeks later, on 30 June 1981, it appears the applicant departed AWOL again. Change of duty status documents confirm this information. However, his charge sheet reflects AWOL from 28 July to 12 October 1981 when he surrendered to military authorities. In an AWOL interview he indicated that he went AWOL because his girlfriend was pregnant and they did not have enough money for her divorce. He states his plane was due to leave for Germany on 29 July 1981 and he had received no help from his chain of command.

When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

A mental health evaluation, conducted on 16 October 1981, found the applicant fully alert and oriented, his memory good, and his thought process clear and normal. It determined the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

The applicant’s request was approved and on 6 November 1981 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

In August 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

The clinical notes from the Westfield Area Child Guidance Center, which the applicant submitted in support of his request, indicate a total of eight sessions (two with the applicant, five with his parents, and one with another individual) between October 1967 and July 1968. He was 5 years old at the time. His final diagnosis was "adjustment reaction of childhood" and that "further care not indicated at this time" was the final disposition.

The psychiatric progress notes from 1996 indicate the applicant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, but had been sober since 1996. It notes that the applicant "started to retrieve memories of being sexually and physically abused as a child." He was diagnosed with "major depression, recurrent with psychotic features, in early partial remission" and "panic disorder with agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, history of substance abuse, in full remission."

His 1998 psychiatric progress notes an "extensive history of alcohol abuse beginning at age 11, and abuse of cocaine and opiates starting in his teens." It also notes the applicant had a "history of antisocial behavior and apparently considerable criminal activity with several prison terms." He was diagnosed with "schizoaffective disorder with recent psychotic depression, now in remission" and "probable personality disorder…with paranoid and dependent features."

His 1999 psychiatric progress notes indicate the applicant reported being homosexually abused by his older brother when he was “about seven and eight and his brother was fifteen."

His 2000 psychiatric progress notes indicate that the applicant was "found to be alert, oriented, cooperative, and articulate. He responded to questions with content appropriate responses.”

Following each of the above notes was an indication that the applicant was prescribed various medications.

The two remaining documents, provided by the applicant in support of his application, indicate he participated in the Noble Hospital Partial Hospitalization Program between 25 August and 8 September 2000 and again between
7 September and 9 October 2001. Both discharge summaries note the applicant was able to fully participate in the program, giving and receiving feedback appropriately.

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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with established regulations and law with no indication that his rights were jeopardized in anyway.

2. The evidence indicates that the applicant elected to request an administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial because his girlfriend was pregnant and his chain of command would not render assistance in getting his overseas assignment changed. There is no evidence in available record, or presented by the applicant, that he made any attempt to secure assistance from his chain of command. The fact that he now contends, nearly 20 years after the fact, that his childhood abuse and subsequent mental illnesses should somehow excuse his behavior, or justify the basis for upgrading his discharge, is without foundation. The Board concludes the applicant made his choices regarding his military career freely and that his current medical condition was not a factor.

3. The Board also notes that the applicant has not presented any evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.

4. 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 that requirement.

5. 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

__MKP__ __EJA___ __RTD__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065358
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020411
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.