| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he suffered a borderline disorder and was psychologically unstable but was not seen by a psychiatrist. He did not know what was wrong with him and the Army did not give him any medical help. When his uncle died, he suffered severe trauma. His previous record shows that he served honorably before this time. He was diagnosed with a borderline disorder and schizophrenia with a paranoid effect in 1982. Before he received the appropriate medicine, he was in such misery he turned to alcohol and drugs.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 27 March 2001 (docket number AR2000050458).
The applicant provides a handwritten document dated 11 September 2001 from a civilian doctor. The letter indicates the doctor saw the applicant from 1982 - 1990 and had diagnosed him with dysthymic disorder and mixed substance dependence and borderline personality disorder. The doctor stated the applicant had episodic bouts of extreme psychosis accompanied by extreme behavioral problems and episodic alcohol and substance abuse relapses.
The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1975. On 18 October 1977, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 14 May 1979, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 18 April 1979, being disrespectful to a commissioned officer on 18 April 1979, disobeying a lawful order on 18 April 1979, and committing assault and inflicting grievous bodily harm on 19 April 1979. His report of trial indicated he entered the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program around 9 November 1978, admitted he had an alcohol problem around 16 April 1979, and was then placed on Antabuse. The applicant's alcohol counselor testified that he gave the Antabuse to the applicant's First Sergeant on 17 or 18 April 1979, who said he would ensure the applicant took it. The First Sergeant testified that he did not give the applicant the Antabuse supplied by the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program.
Three of the four offenses for which the applicant was charged occurred on 18 April 1979; the assault charge occurred on 19 April 1979. According to the transcript of trial, the assault charge was alcohol related.
On 7 May 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and able to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in court-martial proceedings. His thought content was found to be normal (not abnormal or hallucinatory and with no paranoid ideation and no delusions).
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. 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.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was given a mental status evaluation prior to his court-martial and no evidence of a mental disorder was found.
3. It is noted that the applicant was entered into the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program around 9 November 1978 but did not admit he had an alcohol problem until around 16 April 1979, at which time he was placed on Antabuse. The Antabuse was given to the applicant's First Sergeant on 17 or 18 April 1979 to ensure the applicant took it. Testimony indicated the First Sergeant did not immediately give it to the applicant. The offenses for which the applicant was charged occurred on 18 and 19 April 1979, and the assault charge, which occurred on 19 April 1979, was alcohol related. Nevertheless, it does not appear the First Sergeant egregiously erred by delaying giving the Antabuse to the applicant by only a day or two. The Army attempted to help the applicant by entering him into the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program in November 1978. Had he made an earnest attempt to help himself, he could have been on the drug much earlier, prevented a lot of his misery, and perhaps have prevented the misconduct for which he was court-martialed.
4. It is noted that the applicant's prior record of service was not without incident. He received an Article 15 during his first enlistment.
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
__JHL__ __MMD__ ___REB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071792 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | BCD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/12/03 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027528
After interviewing the applicant and evaluating his behavior, the military psychologist concluded the applicant did not have a psychiatric disorder. On 7 December 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 19 October to 1 December 1981. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 states that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2007-176
The Page 7 notes that because it was his second alcohol abuse incident, he was being processed for separation pursuant to Article 20-B-2.d. On April 3, 1989, the CO submitted a recommendation, which was required by Article 20-B-2 of the Personnel Manual, that the applicant be discharged because of his two alcohol abuse incidents. The CO requested that the applicant be retained on active duty despite Coast Guard policy as follows: 3.
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-165
If the military judge determines that the member lacks the mental capacity to stand trial, the member may be administratively discharged because of the mental disability. However, the record indicates that, at the time of her discharge in August 1989, the applicant had not complained of or received medication for any psy- chotic symptoms since November 1987. The board’s evaluation states that Applicant was awaiting court martial on charges of arson, cocaine abuse and unauthorized absences...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420
The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02012-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 October 2002. You were discharged by reason of unsuitability/personality disorder on 19 October 1979. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019809
The applicant reported he might be AWOL, but it was because he was hospitalized at the Jackson VA Hospital for 30 days. The medical records were provided by the applicant's counsel to show the hospitalization locations, dates, diagnosis, and attending physicians. location date diagnosis/attending physician 130th Station Hospital Germany 1-14 May 1974 chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia (Dr. C____) Brooke Army Medical Center 16 May-5 June 1974 acute moderate undifferentiated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008430
The applicants military record shows that after having prior honorable active duty service during the period 1 September 1972 through 25 August 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 24 June 1976. The unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his enrollment in TRAC II of the ADAPCP and subsequent rehabilitation failure in that program, the MP identification of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076652C070215
An Army psychiatrist at the Fort Campbell US Army Hospital stipulated the applicant was medically qualified to return to duty, but also recommended he not be exposed to further combat and that he be restricted to assignments within the United States not involving basic combat training. On 27 January 1989, the VA found the applicant to be 100 percent disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the processing of this case, a medical advisory opinion was obtained from the United...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017448
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was discharged on 15 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008082
Headquarters, U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS, General Court-Martial Order Number 138, dated 22 February 1982, shows after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge executed. The evidence of record shows the applicant served through an enlistment and two reenlistments, in various positions, within and outside of the continental United States, and attained the rank/grade of SGT/E-5,...