IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  27 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022870 


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 an upgrade of her undesirable discharge to either a general discharge or a discharge due to physical disability.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she believes she should have received either a medical or general discharge instead of an undesirable discharge in lieu of court-martial because she was very sick at the time and she did not feel strong enough to go through the court-martial process.  She attests she was disabled and frightened due to paranoid schizophrenia.  She took an entire bottle of pills in an attempt to end her life.  As a result, she was treated in the emergency room at Fort Jackson, SC.  She states she lost the documentary evidence years ago, but she does currently receive social security disability compensation as is shown on the bank statement she provides with her application.  She adds that she had no medicine and was trying to hide what was happening to her, but finally she got treatment and decided to write a letter to President Obama.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a transaction statement from her bank account.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Although the applicant lists her doctor as counsel, the doctor provides no request, statement, or evidence on the applicant's behalf.



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 16 January 1974.  She did not complete the requisite training for award of a military occupational specialty.

3.  The applicant's record contains:

	a.  A Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 13 March 1974, which shows she visited the Moncrief Army Hospital at Fort Jackson, SC because she was feeling distraught, pressured, and wanting to get out of the Army.  As a result, she was provided two 2 milligram tablets of Valium to help her relax and she was referred for a mental hygiene appointment.

	b.  Certificate/Statement, dated 15 March 1974, which shows the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on this date.  The examining captain/social worker and major/psychiatrist opined the applicant had no mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  She met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  It was further opined the applicant was so far free from mental defect, disease, or derangement as to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  It was determined the applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and to participate in board proceedings.  As a result, the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by her command.  The social worker and psychiatrist noted the applicant was told she had 180 days to decide if she wanted to stay or get out of the military; she wanted out.  She had the ability to train, but did not want to.



	c.  An SF 600, dated 5 May 1974, which shows the applicant was treated in the Emergency Room of Moncrief Army Hospital for a possible overdose of Darvon (a pain relief medication) approximately 45 minutes prior to her visit.  She told the medical staff "I have too many problems to stay sane...I took the pills to kill myself."  It was also annotated the "Patient talked about numerous personal and 'Army' problems and wanted to see a psychiatrist.  Done in the AM."

   d.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), initiated on 6 May 1974, that shows court-martial charges were preferred against her for two specifications of violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by without authority, departing from her unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from on or about 18 March to 3 April 1974 and then again from 5 April to 4 May 1974.  As a result, her company commander recommended she be tried by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

4.  On 22 May 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her.  Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In her request for discharge she indicated she understood that by requesting discharge, she was admitting guilt to the charge against her or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  She acknowledged she understood that if her discharge request were approved, she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf and declined her right to undergo a separation medical evaluation.

5.  The applicant's company, battalion, and brigade-level commanders recommended approval of her request with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The company commander stated the applicant was counseled upon returning from being AWOL in both instances; but during all counseling sessions it became evident that she had no desire to perform adequately as a Soldier.  She lacked the desire, self-discipline, and the maturity to serve satisfactorily in the Army.  She possessed none of the desirable qualities of a Soldier and she had no potential for further service.  The battalion commander opined that her rehabilitative potential was virtually nil because of her total lack of motivation and dislike of Army life.
6.  On 7 June 1974, the applicant underwent a preseparation physical medical examination.

	a.  In conjunction with her physical, she completed an SF 93 (Report of Medical History) wherein she indicated the following pertinent information:

		(1)  in item 8 (Statement of examinee's present health and medications currently used), she stated she was in "excellent health - no medications currently used."

		(2)  in item 9 (Have you ever), she indicated she had attempted suicide.

		(3)  in item 11 (Have you ever had or have you now), she indicated previous and/or current:  depression or excessive worry and nervous trouble.

	b.  The doctor indicated additional notes pertaining to the applicant's medical history on the SF 93.

	c.  In conjunction with the applicant's physical, the examining physician rendered an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) wherein he indicated he did not detect any abnormalities during the clinical evaluation, noted no defects or diagnoses and determined the applicant was cleared for separation.

7.  On 10 June 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge.

8.  On 14 June 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  She completed 3 months and 14 days of creditable active service.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge in the rank/grade of 
PV1/E-1.  It further shows she accrued 45 days of time lost.

9.  On 4 June 1975, The Adjutant General informed the applicant that after careful review of her application, military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined she was properly and equitably discharged.  Accordingly, her request for a change in the character and/or reason of her discharge was denied.




10.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A self-authored statement wherein she states she became seriously ill with what she later learned was Paranoid Schizophrenia while attending Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, SC.  She was having strong delusions and lost her complete mind.  She went AWOL because she could not cope with military life.  She took a whole bottle of Darvon trying to escape life and had to be treated at the emergency room and was subsequently returned to the barracks.  She went AWOL and returned home for a while.  However, she returned to the Army to try to get out the right way.  Her counsel at the time advised her that she could get out without court-martial, but she had to take a less than desirable discharge in order to do so.  Her mental condition caused her to make a poor decision.  She believes she should have received either a medical or a general discharge due to her disabling illness.  For many years she was psychotic and could not even fry a hamburger.  After many years and hospitalizations, the doctors finally found a drug that worked for her.  The nature of her discharge causes her grief and shame that she has failed her country.  She did not want anyone to know about her sickness so, she never talked about it.

	b.  A bank statement for the activity in her account during the period 28 July through 27 August 2012.  She circled an entry for 3 August which shows a U.S. Treasury check was deposited for the amount of $991.00.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides 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.

12.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.  It states that the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her record should be corrected by upgrading her under other than honorable conditions discharge to either a general or a medical discharge was carefully considered and determined to lack merit.

2.  The fact that the applicant received medical treatment after ingesting pain pills on 5 May 1974 is not disputed.  Nor is the fact that she received a deposit from the U.S. Treasury for an unspecified reason on 3 August 2012.  However, neither incident is considered sufficiently mitigating to grant the requested relief.

3.  The applicant's record is void of any evidence and she did not provide any evidence that shows she was diagnosed with an unfitting medical condition.  In fact, she stated she was in excellent health at the time of her separation physical. She had an opportunity to submit a statement with her request for discharge wherein she could have raised this issue in mitigation.  She declined that opportunity. 

4.  Her record shows she was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and she voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10 to avoid a trial by court-martial which may have resulted in a felony conviction.

5.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  There is no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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)                                         AR20120022870



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022870



7


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1