IN THE CASE OF:.

		BOARD DATE:  13 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120010242 


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, through his Member of Congress, reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged by mutual consent and he was told the discharge would be under honorable conditions.  He and his best friend were raped by other Soldiers while in Germany in 1973.  His best friend ended up committing suicide.

3.  The applicant provides two medical statements. 

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 AR20110011725, dated 5 January 2012.

2.  The applicant provides two medical statements which were not previously considered by the Board; therefore, they are considered new evidence and will be considered by the Board.

3.   The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1971.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialties 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).
4.  His record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 1 February 1973, for:

* willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer on 23 January 1973
* absenting himself from his unit on 24 January 1973

5.  The available evidence shows his unit reported him absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about:

* 6 August to 26 September 1973
* 1 November 1973 to 21 January 1974

6.  On 22 January 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from his unit on the above two occasions.

7.  On 22 January 1974, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the procedures and rights available to him.

8.  On 24 January 1974, subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  In his request he states, in part:  "I absolutely detest the f______ Army.  I will never return to duty because I simply cannot stand being around these stupid f____ people.  If returned to duty I'll go AWOL as I have 4 times before." 

9.  In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He further acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  

10.  On 21 February 1974, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 1 March 1974, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 confirms he:
* completed 1 year, 11 months, and 9 days of total active service with 127 days of lost time
* received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate

11.  His record contains no evidence that shows he suffered from an injury or illness, either physical or psychological, which would have warranted referral to the Physical Disability Evaluation System.

12.  On 2 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  He did not raise any of his current assertions at that time.  He only alleged that the characterization of service was too harsh.

13.  As new evidence, he provides:  

	a.  A medical statement from Dr. John T. P____, dated 17 April 2012, which indicates the applicant is under his care for the treatment of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and an anxiety disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and panic features.  This doctor states it is entirely possible that the applicant's anxiety disorder is related to the rape that occurred in Germany in 1972, and that his schizoaffective disorder could be related to this trauma as well.  The applicant is receiving ongoing care for these conditions.  

	b.  A medical statement from Ms. Carol L. C____, a VA clinical social worker, dated 4 May 2012, which states the applicant was referred to Military Sexual Trauma (MST) health services after disclosing he had been sexually assaulted while in the military.  He indicated he and his best friend were sexually assaulted and his best friend ended up committing suicide.  He reported his subsequent misbehaviors while in the military including being AWOL were efforts to get out of the service due to his fear.  His current difficulties include intrusive memories, physical reactivity, chronic hyperarousal, and depression.  He feels shame about the sexual trauma and has expressed self-blame and guilt about not doing more to prevent his best friend's suicide.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 further provides in:

	a.  paragraph 3-7a 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.

	b.  paragraph 3-7b that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his request for an upgrade of his discharge should be reconsidered.  He has provided two medical statements as new evidence.

2.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence in the available record to support his contention that he was raped by fellow service members.  

3.  The statements of support were carefully considered; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in this case.  The statements that were provided which indicate events that occurred more than 30 years ago may have impacted the applicant's behavior are insufficient as bases for concluding that relief is warranted.  

4.  Thus, the evidence of record fails to support the applicant's claim.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110011725, dated 5 January 2012.



      ____________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)                                         AR20120001118



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                       AR201200010242



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1