IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	       25 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007157 


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, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) upgrade his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and change his narrative reason for separation something more favorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his characterization of service and narrative reason for separation diminishes his character as a person and former service member.  It is unjust to diminish someone's quality of life with this type of discharge.  His mental health state was fragile and instead of receiving an honorable medical discharge he was provided with an administrative discharge.  It is devastating to have anything other than an honorable characterization of service; therefore, he is disputing his unjust discharge.  He was discharged under honorable conditions as a result of bipolar and major depressive disorders; however, he does not possess supporting military documents to demonstrate his mental health at the time of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 7 August 1986 and held the military occupational specialty 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist).  He was assigned to Fort Riley, KS, from 3 April 1989 to 1 December 1987.

3.  His record contains numerous negative DA Forms 4856-R (General Counseling Form) ranging in date from 29 April 1987 to 21 October 1987.  These forms show he was counseled for:

* needing to show more initiative in maintaining his personal equipment
* straighten out his family problems to prevent a second suicide attempt
* writing bad checks
* poor personal appearance and failure to carry himself in a military manner
* failure to properly maintain his living area
* having a poor attitude and being unmotivated
* continual failure to properly manage a checking account
* being absent without leave (AWOL)
* needing to pay more attention to detail in every assigned task
* failure to shine his boots to standard for a wall locker inspection
* failure to prepare for a room and wall locker inspection
* losing his weapons card

4.  His record contains five notifications of dishonored checks from four agencies on Fort Riley, KS, ranging in date from 12 May 1987 to 21 May 1987.  During this period he wrote six dishonored checks for various amounts which were returned due to insufficient funds.  As a result he incurred a service charge for each returned check.  The total amount due to the various agencies after service charges totaled $335.50.

5.  His record contains a DD Form 139 (Pay Adjustment Authorization), dated 
8 June 1987, the Fort Riley, KS, Exchange sent to his command.  The form stated the applicant had been notified in writing concerning the indebtedness he has incurred for sixteen checks cashed at the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFFES) which were returned and dishonored due to insufficient funds. The total amount due, including service charges was listed as $620.50.  AAFES requested the assistance of his chain of command in the collection of the monies owed.
6.  His record contains several DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) which show his duty status change on the following dates from:

* Present for duty (PDY) to ordinary leave (OLV) on 29 May 1987
* OLV to AWOL on 13 June 1987
* AWOL to PDY on 27 June 1987

7.  His record contains a DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate), dated 29 June 1987, showing his unit first sergeant wished to question him about being suspected/accused of AWOL.  However, he checked a box indicating he did not want to give up his rights and did not wish to be questioned or say anything.

8.  On 1 July 1987, he received punishment non-judicial (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL.

9.  On 3 September 1987, he was taken to the Irwin Community Hospital, Fort Riley, KS, by ambulance because of an overdose.  He ingested 55 capsules of amoxicillin and was given ipecac syrup by the emergency medical technician.

10.  His record contains a DA Form 3647 (Inpatient Record Cover Sheet), dated 
17 September 1987.  This form shows he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with atypical features, acute, moderate; manifested by depression, paranoid ideation, tremulousness, and a suicide attempt, and a bipolar disorder, mixed, mild; manifested by affective instability, vegetative mood instability, grandiosity, depression, and social over-activity.

11.  His record contains a DA Form 3833-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 September 1987, wherein his psychiatrist noted his behavior was hyperactive, fully alert, fully orientated, his mood and effect was hypomanic, his thinking process was clear and his thought content normal, he had a good memory, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, he was mentally responsible, he met the medical retention requirements listed in chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  His psychiatrist further noted:

	a.  He was experiencing an adjustment reaction to the reasonable demands of military service and does not possess the essential characterologic and emotional strengths necessary to be a continuously effective Soldier.

	b.  It was recommended he be considered for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command to, include separation from military service under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Unsatisfactory Performance).

12.  On 20 September 1987, his psychiatrist prepared a narrative summary (NARSUM).  The NARSUM noted the applicant was a 19 year old, single male, who had been referred for psychiatric treatment by the Emergency Treatment Center following a suicidal overdose gesture.  His chief complaint was that he had started remembering all the problems he faced with his fiancé.  

	a.  He related two years of frequent mood shifts from irritable to elated with corresponding sleep, energy, appetite, and libido changes, usually lasting only hours to days, but occasionally lasting into weeks.  The mood shifts began approximately two years ago following the death of a friend, when the applicant began to feel he had taken part of his friend's soul within himself.  He described intermittent paranoid ideation and referential delusions since then, with occasional grandiose thoughts of having ESP, and auditory hallucinations while carrying on conversations with these individuals.  

	b.  In June 1987, he went AWOL for 13 days following an emergency leave to his family because his grandmother was very ill.  During this time he impulsively left the household and began staying with his father and friends.  When he returned to duty he received NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ, and a reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1.  

	c.  His present difficulties began three days prior to his admission after when his 33 year old fiancé, who has five children and is currently pregnant with his child, informed him of difficulties with the pregnancy and discord between the applicant's family and herself.  This led to deep despondency and depression with ruminative thoughts and suicidal ideation.  He impulsively took several handfuls of amoxicillin the night prior to admission and informed no one.  The following morning it was noted he was moving very slowly and his command referred him to the Emergency Treatment Center.

	d.  The Emergency Treatment Center referred him to the Community Mental Health Service  where it was noted his behavior was quite inappropriate, with him being agitated, confused, admitting to auditory hallucinations of his fiancé talking to him, pressured speech, trembling throughout, and admitting to having the spirit of his fiancé visiting him and walking with him.

	e.  He is presently in a steady relationship with a 33-year old woman with five children ranging in age from 4-15, and presently pregnant with his child.  This has created much discord between the applicant and his family because of the age difference and her past sexual history.
	f.  He presented as an anxious appearing young male.  He was trembling and shivering initially and described his mood as "fine."  His speech was slightly pressured, occasionally rambling.  His thought processes were generally logical. His behavior was gregarious, talkative, and slightly intrusive.  His thought content was remarkable for occasional auditory hallucinations, intermittent paranoid and referential delusions, and grandiose thoughts of the power of ESP.  The affect was casual, almost cavalier at times.  His judgment and insight were fair at best.

	g.  He was admitted to inpatient psychiatry and treated with individual and group psychotherapy, and milieu therapy.  He was noted on the ward to be loud, grandiose, intrusive, and somewhat hyperactive during the early course of the hospitalization.  He was started on lithiobid (600 milligram, bid), and over the course of the remainder of the hospitalization has a slow decrease in his mild manic activity.  He remained preoccupied with his problems with his fiancé and made numerous calls to the parties involved trying to effect a change.

	h.  The command and staff felt he would not likely be able to stay in the service and remain functional; therefore, the decision to administratively separate him was made while he was hospitalized and recommendations to that effect were sent forward through his chain of command.

13.  His record contains a Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History) and an SF 98 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 October 1987, which show he received a medical evaluation prior to the initiation of his administrative separation.  His SF 88 indicated he was medically qualified for separation.  

14.  His record contains an additional DA Form 3833-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 19 October 1987, which show he received a mental status evaluation prior to the initiation of his administrative separation wherein his psychiatrist noted his behavior was normal, fully alert, fully orientated, his mood and effect was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear and his thought content normal, he had a good memory, he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, he was mentally responsible, he met retention requirements.  He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation and given the medical diagnosis of bipolar disorder, mixed, mild and manic-depressive disorder.  

15.  On an unspecified date, his commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13-2, for unsatisfactory Performance, based on his diagnosis of a personality disorder and his actions over the past year, and informed him of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification.
16.  On an unspecified date, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, the possible effects of a general under honorable conditions discharge, and the rights available to him.  He requested counsel and indicated he did not intend to submit statements in his own behalf.

17.  On 14 July 1987, he submitted a memorandum of appeal through his chain of command.  In this appeal he stated rehabilitation, rather than separation, would be the most appropriate course of action to take in his case.  He argues that the chain of command had not helped him to improve in his weak areas, and he would like the chance to make improvements to become a better Soldier.  

18.  On 19 November 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed he received a general under honorable conditions discharge.  

19.  On 1 December 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a character of service as under honorable conditions (general).  This form further shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days of net active service and 14 days of lost time during this period of active duty.  

20.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 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.

22.  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.

23.  Army Regulation 40-501 establishes policies and prescribes procedures for the physical disability evaluation of members of the Army for retention, retirement, or separation.  Chapter 3 lists medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time did not name bipolar disorder, depression, and personality disorders are not listed as conditions unfitting for retention.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no documentary evidence showing the applicant had any medical conditions that rendered him unfit for retention.  Prior to his discharge processing, he underwent a mental status evaluation which shows he met medical retention standards.

2.  The evidence of record shows his duty performance was tarnished by one instance of AWOL, writing 22 bad checks, and a history of negative counseling.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed he received a general under honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  The evidence of record further shows his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.

4.  In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20120007157



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007157



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1