IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  13 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120019059


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 defers her request to counsel.

2.  The applicant makes no additional statement in support of her request.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of her request.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) decision regarding the applicant's request for an upgrade of general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  Counsel states the following:

	a.  The provided documents are only a representative sampling of the applicant's psychiatric history.  These records illustrate she has suffered from severe mental illness since her time in service.

	b.  The applicant contends her mental illness issues result from an assault she suffered while on active duty.  The VA has supported this contention.

	c.  The single mental status examination conducted prior to the applicant's discharge, which mistakenly misdiagnosed her condition and ignored her psychological impairments, was clearly in error.

	d.  The applicant contends that if she received the care she needed at the time prior to her discharge, rehabilitation would have been likely.  Furthermore, her medical evidence supports her contention that her medical conditions prevented her from the satisfactory completion of her obligated service.

3.  Counsel provides:

* Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care), identified as medical progress notes, from the Department of Family Practice, 5th General Hospital, dated 12 June 1990 through
9 October 1990
* a cover memorandum with enclosed 17-page Statement of the Case from the Chicago Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 3 June 2003
* documents related to a Notice of Decision – Fully Favorable, rendered by an administrative law judge from the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration (SSA), dated 26 June 2002
* a 3-page single-spaced typed letter from the applicant
* a letter from the Richland County Sheriff's Department, Richland County, South Carolina (SC), dated 9 April 2002
* Discharge Fact Sheet, Georgia (GA) Regional Hospital, Decatur, GA, pertaining to her hospital discharge on 18 September 1993
* documents related to the applicant's treatment by the Families First organization during the period March 1996 through June 1996
* medical documents from the Dekalb Community Service Board pertaining to the applicant's treatment during the period 22 May 1997 through 23 July 1997
* inpatient psychiatric records from St. Vincent's Hospital pertaining to the applicant's treatment during the period 2 August 1998 through 3 August 1998
* therapy notes from Your and Family Services Counseling pertaining to the applicant's treatment during the period 8 November 1999 through
28 March 2001
* progress notes and treatment records from the Manlove Psychiatric Group pertaining to the applicant's treatment during the period 28 January 2000 through 4 December 2000
* VA Form 21-526 (Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension), dated 7 February 1991

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110017521, dated 6 March 2012.

2.  The applicant provides numerous documents that address her medical conditions that constitute new evidence not previously considered by the Board.  Therefore, this new evidence warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 November 1989.  She completed her initial entry training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist).

4.  On or about 17 April 1990, upon the completion of her initial entry training, she was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 6th Area Support Group, Germany.

5.  On 19 November 1990, she underwent a mental status evaluation wherein the chief of outpatient psychiatry stated:

* she suffered from no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels
* her disorder was classified as alcohol abuse with a personality style classified as histrionic and anti-social
* her condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military
* it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful

6.  On 3 January 1991, the applicant's immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct – patterns of misconduct.  Her immediate commander noted that he would recommend she receive a general discharge.

7.  On 7 January 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum.  She acknowledged she had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and its effect, of the rights available to her and of the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights.
8.  She was further advised that she could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of her discharge; however, such consideration by either Board would not imply her discharge would be upgraded.

9.  On 11 January 1991, the applicant's immediate commander recommended her separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  Her commander recommended she receive a general discharge.

10.  On 14 January 1991, the separation authority approved her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – patterns of misconduct and directed she receive a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 25 January 1991, she was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she received a general discharge.

12.  Her record contains no documentation that shows she was diagnosed with any physical or mental condition that warranted disposition through medical channels.

13.  There is no indication she applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Her counsel submitted numerous medical documents that attest to her medical conditions following her discharge.  None of the submitted documents establish a definitive link between her current medical conditions and her past military service; nor do they confirm the applicant was physically assaulted during her period of service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, in sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 1-35 (Disposition through medical channels), in effect at the time, states that when the examining medical officer decides a member being considered for elimination for misconduct (chapter 14) does not meet the retention medical standards, he or she will refer that member to a medical board. The medical treatment facility commander will furnish a copy of the approved board proceedings to the commander exercising general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) over the member concerned.  The commander exercising 

GCMCA will direct the member to be processed through disability channels per Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) when the disability is determined to be the cause or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct or circumstances warrant disability processing instead of administrative processing.

	b.  Chapter 14 establishes the policies and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	c.  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.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her under honorable conditions (general) discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support her request.

2.  The applicant contends she was the victim of an assault during her period of service.  Unfortunately her record is void of evidence to support this contention.

3.  She contends the provided medical evidence shows her medical conditions prevented her from the satisfactory completion of her obligated service.  She further contends that had she received the care she needed prior to her discharge, rehabilitation would have been likely.

4.  The evidence of record does not show she was diagnosed with any physical or mental condition that would have warranted disposition through medical channels.  The mental status evaluation only indicated alcohol abuse with a personality style classified as histrionic and anti-social.  On the contrary, as established in the original Record of Proceedings, the evidence shows she was subject to counseling and adverse administrative action resulting from misconduct on numerous occasions prior to her discharge.

5.  Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The applicant benefited from the advice of counsel.  The separation authority approved her discharge and she was ultimately issued a general discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110017521, dated 6 March 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)                                         AR20110020788



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120019059



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1