IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000751 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* He was discharged because of a medical problem (schizophrenia)
* His discharge is inequitable because he had a mental illness which manifested itself while he was in the service and it was unknown prior to that

3.  The applicant provides statements from doctors regarding his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, 


has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 October 1980 for a period of 4 years.  He completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (medical specialist). 

3.  On 8 July 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 

4.  On 30 December 1981, NJP was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order. 

5.  On 14 February 1983, NJP was imposed against the applicant for assault. 

6.  On 16 April 1983, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant.

7.  On 3 May 1983, he was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The separation action was based on the applicant's:

* continued unsatisfactory duty performance
* inability to perform prescribed duties without constant supervision
* failing to obey lawful orders
* missing training
* irresponsible attitude

8.  On 12 May 1983, he consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation action.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

9.  On 19 May 1983, the separation action was initiated through the chain of command.

10.  On 23 May 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

11.  He was accordingly discharged on 20 June 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 29 days of creditable active service.

12.  There is no evidence that shows he was diagnosed with any mental condition prior to his discharge.

13.  He provided three statements from doctors, dated in 7 December 2001,
6 November 2003, and 29 May 2007, which state he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

14.  On 17 May 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an honorable discharge.  His ADRB proceedings state a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation on 27 May 1983.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he was discharged because of a mental illness (schizophrenia) which manifested itself while he was in the service and it was unknown prior to that.  However, no evidence shows he was diagnosed with a mental condition prior to his discharge in 1983.  No evidence shows he was having mental problems in 1983 that interfered with his ability to perform his military duties or that this was the underlying cause for the misconduct that led to his discharge.  His ADRB proceedings indicate he underwent a mental status evaluation on 
27 May 1983 and he was cleared for separation.  

2.  His record of service included a bar to reenlistment and 3 NJPs.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 
 
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  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.



      ____________X___________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000751



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000751



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1