RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011018


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his honorable discharge, issued
by the Army Discharge Review Board under Secretarial Authority, be changed
to a medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was mentally ill and having
medical problems, but he was discharged from the U.S. Army in such a hurry
that nobody considered the reason for his behavior or medical problems.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of Army Discharge Review Board letter,
dated 28 May 2004, along with OSA Form 172 (Military Review Boards Case
Report & Directive), his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty), his Honorable Discharge Certificate, and the voided DD
Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he initially entered active
duty on
10 May 1995 and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty
(MOS) 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).

2.  On 31 August 1998, while serving at Fort Gordon, Georgia, the applicant
was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 1 September
1998, he reenlisted for three years on the enlistment under review.

3.  The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he held while
serving on active duty was specialist (SPC)/pay grade E-4.  The record
documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting
special recognition, and confirms that the awards he received during his
active duty tenure were the Army Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal,
National Defense Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Marksman
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

4.  On or about 24 January 2000, the applicant departed absent without
leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Carson, Colorado.  He remained away for
57 days until returning to military control on or about 21 March 2000.  A
Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared that preferred a court-martial
charge against the applicant for his violation of Article 86 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for this period of AWOL.



5.  On 27 March 2001, subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant
voluntarily submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  In this request, he confirmed that he had been afforded the
opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and that he had been fully
advised on the nature of his rights.

6.  On 26 April 2001, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s
request, and directed that he receive an under other than honorable
conditions discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 8 June 2001.  The separation
document prepared on the applicant confirms that at the time of his
discharge he had completed 2 years,
7 months, and 11 days of active military service and had accrued 57 days of
time lost due to AWOL on the period of enlistment under review.

7.  On 18 October 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.  The ADRB found that
the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and that it accurately
reflected his overall record of service.

8.  On 10 December 2002, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
(ABCMR) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.
The ABCMR found that the applicant failed to submit sufficient relevant
evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

9.  On 28 May 2004, the ADRB reviewed the applicant's case.  The applicant
provided 61 documents to the ADRB and personally appeared and testified.
The applicant claimed that he should have been given a medical discharge
because he was mentally ill, had been hospitalized for his condition, and
was suffering mental problems when he was discharged from the U.S. Army.
The ADRB determined that relief was warranted.  The ADRB found that the
discharge was proper; however, it found that it was inequitable as to
characterization and reason.  The ADBR directed that the applicant's record
be changed to reflect the characterization of discharge as honorable, the
reason and authority for discharge as Secretarial Authority (Chapter 5, AR
635-200), and to restore the applicant's grade to private first class/E-3.
The ADRB did not change the applicant's Reentry Code (RE) Code.

10.  The applicant provides a copy of the ADRB Case Report & Directive in
support of his application.  He also indicates that he is currently being
treated by both the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center in
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and the West Alabama Mental Health Clinic in Eutaw,
Alabama, and that these records are available upon request.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) 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, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred
and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides, in pertinent part, that
separation under Secretarial plenary authority is the prerogative of the
Secretary of the Army.  Secretarial plenary separation authority is
exercised sparingly and seldom delegated.  Ordinarily, it is used when no
other provision of the regulation applies.  Separations under this
authority are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary's approved designee as announced in updated
memorandums.  Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a
case-by-case basis, but may be used for a specific class or category of
Soldiers.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply
in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.
 Chapter 3 provides guidance on presumptions of fitness.  It states that
the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding
of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary
to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the
requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to
perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Separation by
reason of disability requires processing through the PDES.










14.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains guidance on processing
through the PDES, which includes the convening of a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations
insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  If the MEB determines
a Soldier does not meet retention standards, the case will be referred to a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB evaluates all cases of physical
disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.  The PEB investigates
the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the
disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board.  It also
evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical
requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating.
Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish
the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical
disability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his honorable discharge issued
under Secretarial authority should be changed to a medical retirement
because he was mentally ill and having medical problems during the period
of enlistment under review and at the time of his discharge.  He also
contends that he was discharged from the U.S. Army in such a hurry that
nobody considered the reason for his behavior, or his medical problems.

2.  There is no evidence in available records which shows the applicant was
treated for mental illness during the period of enlistment under review.
There is no documentation from a medical authority confirming that the
applicant suffered from disqualifying physical or mental defects sufficient
to warrant his separation processing through medical channels.

3.  Evidence of records show the applicant’s request for separation under
the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the
service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary, administratively
correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations.

4.  Records show the applicant was properly discharged in accordance with
the regulations in effect at that time, all requirements of law and
regulations were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected
throughout the separation process.



5.  The ADRB's review of the applicant's case found his discharge to be
proper.  However, the ADRB directed changes to the characterization,
reason, and authority for discharge, along with restoration of the
applicant's grade to private first class/E-3.

6.  The applicant does not provide any medical documentation in support of
his application and there is no evidence in the available records, that
supports the applicant’s contention that he was mentally ill and having
medical problems that were not given due consideration at the time he was
discharged from military service.

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.  Therefore, there is
no basis for granting the applicant's request that his honorable discharge
issued under Secretarial authority be changed to a medical retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SK __  ___BJE__  __RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  _____ Stanley Kelley________
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011018                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20010608                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-3               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Secretarial Authority                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.3100.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]