RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  08 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006083 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Deyon D. Battle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Barbara J. Ellis

Chairperson

Mr. Jose A. Martinez

Member

Mr. Chester A. Damian

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, through his Representative in Congress, reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states that while he was in the Army, he performed his duties well and that he was promoted from the pay grade of E-1 to the pay grade of E-4 in approximately 15 months.  He states that during the first 3 years of his enlistment, he had no instances of violations of the military code.  He states that in October 1983, he began having problems which led to his being punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to carry out a lawful command from a superior officer and for absenting himself without leave (AWOL) in November 1983.  He states that he suffered several reductions in rank and that ultimately, he was discharged from the military in the pay grade of E-1 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant states that an August 1982 assessment documents his developing frustration due to the Army's failure to utilize his abilities.  He states that he was never provided any counseling until the Army decided that he should be discharged.  He states that the assessment was inadequate at best and that less than 2 months after his discharge he was institutionalized and diagnosed with schizophrenia.  The applicant states that he requested an upgrade of his discharge in August 2005 and that his request was denied in May 2006.  He states that he submitted a request for reconsideration which included a statement from his psychiatrist which explained that the early symptoms of his mental illness would have manifested themselves 24 months before it was diagnosed.  He states that he was suffering from schizophrenia while he was on active duty and that his previous request for reconsideration was returned without action due to what was considered to be the lack of new evidence and/or argument.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from a State Veterans Counselor, addressed to this agency, dated 2 March 2007; a copy of a letter from this agency, addressed to the applicant, dated 31 January 2007; a letter from the applicant's psychiatrist dated 13 June 2006; a page from Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary; a copy of a continuation to his Medical Record – Nursing Assessment and Care Plan, dated 1 December 1982; a copy of his Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 28 December 1983; and a copy of a hospital Intake Record which shows that the applicant registered on 8 May 1984, with the complaint "I'm Going To Lose It", and a admission diagnosis of schizophrenia, not otherwise specified chronic/exacerbation.


COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant's case be provided proper reexamination in view of the letter from his psychiatrist dated 13 June 2006.  He also requests that if an upgrade is not established, procedures on how to appeal the Board's decision to the court should be provided.

2.  Counsel states that the letter from the applicant's psychiatrist is both new evidence and argument against the original decision made in his case.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documentation in support of the applicant's request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050012217, on 16 May 2006.

2.  On 2 June 1980, the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army (RA) and he was found to be physically and mentally qualified for enlistment.

3.  Accordingly, the applicant enlisted in the RA on 17 June 1980 and he successfully completed his training as a carpentry and masonry specialist.  The available records indicate that on 1 November 1981, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4.

4.  The continuation page of the Medical Record – Nursing Assessment and Care Plan that the applicant submitted in support of his appeal shows that the attending nurse identified him as an industrious, hard working young man who was disappointed in his Army career.  The nurse noted that the applicant felt he was not being utilized to his capacity; that he had spent some time at a primary leadership course and "messed up"; that he admitted he was wrong and hoped to get another chance; that he worked on a boat for a while, then he got tired of the sea; and that he did not know what he was going to do when it came time for him to reenlist.  The nursing assessment is dated 1 December 1982.




5.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 18 November 1983, for disobeying a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer and for being AWOL from 17 October 1983 until 28 October 1983.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of 
E-2, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

6.  On 5 January 1984, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 21 November 1983 to 7 December 1983.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 28 December 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation to determine his fitness for retention on active duty.  The attending psychiatrist indicated that the applicant's behavior was normal; he was fully alert; he was fully oriented; his mood or affect was unremarkable; his thinking process was clear; his thought content was normal; and his memory was good.  The attending physician opined that he had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in board proceedings and that he was mentally responsible.  He also opined that the applicant had no history of mental illness and that he had no mental illness at the time of the evaluation.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

8.  On 5 January 1984, the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of separation.  The applicant noted that he had a "sist on left hand and wire in left colar bone".  The attending physician noted that he had a closed head injury with concussion, 1981, no complaints, and a fracture of the left clavicle, 1972, with open reduction with internal fixation. 

9.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) that he was furnished shows that he was discharged on 5 March 1984, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, due to a pattern of misconduct.  He had 3 years, 7 months and 13 days of net active service and he had approximately 36 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

10.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.




11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  As new evidence and/or argument, the applicant has submitted a letter authored by his psychiatrist and his social worker dated 13 June 2006.  In the letter, his psychiatrist and social worker state that they question the nature of the applicant's discharge and they request that the discharge be upgraded to honorable.  They state that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge based on the fact that he was mentally ill.  They state that he was refused an upgrade based on the mental status evaluation that he underwent on 28 December 1983, which indicates that he had "no evidence of mental illness".  The psychiatrist and the social worker state that the applicant was discharged on 5 March 1984 and that he was admitted to the hospital on 22 December 1984, with a diagnosis of serious mental illness.  They state that the applicant's diagnosis was determined to be schizophrenia and that he has been treated for this illness for over 20 years.  In the letter, the psychiatrist and the social worker state that the prodromal period of schizophrenia is approximately 2 years and that it is clear that the applicant was suffering from psychosis while he was in the military.  The psychiatrist and the social worker stated that the applicant was an inpatient at Middletown Psychiatric Center in April 1984, 30 days after his discharge and that the psychiatrist has 40 years of experience as a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist and the social worker opine that the applicant's case is particularly egregious and they request that serious attention be given to this matter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based on a review of all of the available documentation, it appears that the Board was correct in its previous conclusion that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.




2.  The contentions made by the applicant, his psychiatrist and his social worker have been noted.  The continuation page of the Medical Record – Nursing Assessment and Care Plan has also been noted.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in this case.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation during the process of his separation and he had no history of mental illness; no psychiatric illness present at the time; and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.  

3.  The applicant failed to obey a lawful order to report for extra duty and he went AWOL on three separate occasions which are acts of misconduct.  They are not indications of an individual's inability to perform his duties. 

4.  There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that he was medically unable to perform his duties while he was in the Army and considering the medical documentation contained in his official record, a letter from his psychiatrist stating that the prodromal period of schizophrenia is approximately 2 years is insufficient proof that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenia when he was on active duty or at the time of his discharge.

5.  The fact that he was institutionalized approximately 30 days after his discharge does not negate the fact that medical authorities determined that he had no mental illness at the time of his discharge.  

6.  In regard to counsel's request that he be provided procedures on how to appeal the Board's decision to the court, if an upgrade of the applicant's discharge is not established, the applicant may contact the Federal court system in the jurisdiction in which he resides for assistance in this matter.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.







BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JAM___  __BJE__  __CAD__  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050012217, dated 16 May 2006.




____Barbara J. Ellis_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070006083
SUFFIX

RECON
20060516
DATE BOARDED
20071108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.  360
144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE
2.  672
144.6750/PATTER OF MISCONDUCT
3.

4.

5.

6.