IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014952 


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 reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his discharge from a general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, due to severe headaches and subsequent treatment he was issued a general discharge.  Service treatment records indicate severe headaches that rendered him confused and unable to realize the importance of an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides:

* excerpts from his service medical records
* a Standard Form (SF) 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 10 December 1996

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 AR20120003306, on 14 August 2012.

2.  The medical records he provides are new evidence that warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  On 4 June 1976, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  On 12 October 1976, he was assigned to Troop D, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry at Fort Campbell, KY.

4.  On 29 November 1976, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  

5.  On 28 April 1977, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) with a general discharge.  The commander stated the reasons for his proposed action were the applicant's negative attitude and his lack of potential for advanced responsibilities.  He had failed to make the emotional adjustments needed in resolving his marital problems for effective duty performance.

6.  The applicant was advised he had the right to decline this discharge, but if subsequent misconduct indicated that such action was warranted, he could be subjected to disciplinary or administrative separation procedures under other provisions of law or regulation.

7.  He was further advised that if he received a general discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  The commander also advised the applicant of his right to: 

* consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps prior to completing his acknowledgements
* submit a statement in his own behalf

8.  The applicant acknowledged he was notified of the proposed discharge action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.

9.  On 28 April 1977, the applicant was counseled by the chaplain concerning his pending discharge.  The applicant was having marriage difficulties that were affecting his military performance.  The chaplain did not feel a discharge would help his situation but the applicant was so convinced it would that he probably would not put the effort into improving himself as a Soldier.  The applicant felt if he did not get a discharge under chapter 5, he would receive a discharge under chapter 13 (unsatisfactory performance) later.  The chaplain felt with this attitude the applicant would continue to have problems in his military duties.  He recommended the applicant be discharged.

10.  On 10 May 1977, the applicant's commander recommended he be separated from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 
635-200, due to the applicant's negative attitude, lack of advancement potential, and emotional maladjustments resulting in marital problems which precluded effective service.

11.  On 10 May 1977, the appropriate authority approved his separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 for failing to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.

12.  On 20 May 1977, he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He completed 11 months and 17 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.   

13.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  His complete service medical records were not available for review.

15.  He provided the following excerpts from his service medical records:

	a.  Two treatment records from the Troop Medical Clinic, dated 16 and 
18 November 1976, where he was treated for a sore throat, cough, and because his eyes were hurting.

	b.  A Medical History, dated 2 May 1977, completed by the applicant on which he indicated he had been treated for ear, eye, nose, or throat trouble and for severe or frequent headaches.

	c.  An SF 513, dated 3 May 1977, requesting a consult for pressure pushing on the back of his right and left eye.  According to the report, he was referred for a visual analysis.

	d.  An Optometry Clinic Screening Room Visual History, dated 4 May 1977, on which he indicated his complaint was headaches, pain, burning, tearing, spots, and glare.  He indicated he did not have a prescription for eye glasses.

	e.  An Eye Consultation, dated 4 May 1977, where he was evaluated for pressure on his eyes with some pain typically on the back of his head.  The consult shows a prescribed correction for farsightedness.

16.  He provided an SF 513, dated 10 December 1996, requesting a neurology consult for a cervical neck injury in 1977 and a concussion, coma for 4 days in 1979.  No consult was conducted, and "no longer in our area" was noted on the form.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program) provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who demonstrated they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions:  poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  The regulation provided that no individual would be discharged under this provision unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either an honorable or a general discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends his discharge should be upgraded because he suffered from severe headaches.  The medical records he submitted show treatment for headaches.  However, nowhere does it indicate that his headaches would have reached the point where he would not have realized the type of discharge he was being recommended for.  

2.  In his statement, dated 28 April 1977, he voluntarily consented to discharge and indicated he did not desire to make a statement.  He also acknowledged that he understood if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and he was provided the opportunity to consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

3.  During his counseling with the chaplain, he indicated if he did not receive a discharge under paragraph 5-37, he would probably receive a discharge for poor performance later.  The chaplain believed he would continue to have problems and recommended that he be discharged.

4.  The applicant's failure to show advancement potential and his emotional maladjustment resulting in marital problems show he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

5.  The evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  His commander notified him of the reasons and the type of discharge he was recommending.  He voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

6.  In view of the above, there is insufficient substantive evidence to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge.

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 AR20120003306, dated 14 August 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)                                         AR20130014952



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014952



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1