BOARD DATE:	  3 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010874 


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 his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  he disagrees with his discharge.  Although he was mentally and medically cleared, his mental health issues were ignored.  He states his life spiraled out of control after his discharge due to addiction and prison.  He is now a 56-year-old man who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and hepatitis C which require treatment.

   b.  he is sorely in need of treatment because social security is not enough.  After 30 years, his punishment far exceeds the actions which led to his separation.  He is sure there are other cases of Soldiers with worse transgressions who received honorable discharges.  He is in dire need of benefits to improve his quality of life and he believes the Army takes care of their own.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Standard Form (SF) 513 (Consultation Sheet)
* Reverse of SF 93 (Report of Medical History)
* Reverse of SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination)
* 2-page Psychiatrist Note - Initial Evaluation

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.  On 15 January 1982, the applicant underwent a physical examination prior to his enlistment in the Regular Army (RA).  The applicant stated he was in good health, was not taking any medication, and had no allergies.  He also denied using drugs, excessive use of alcohol, homosexuality, sleepwalking, and bed wetting.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the RA on 18 February 1982.  He successfully completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty           91B (Medical Specialist).

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of             Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

* 4 August 1982, for absenting himself from his organization from 15 June to 20 July 1982
* 26 October 1982, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 17 October 1982
* 13 January 1983, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 19 December 1982

5.  On 24 January 1983, the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated pending administrative discharge.  The applicant appeared to have poor insight and judgment abilities; however, there were no signs of psychosis or perceptual disorders and he was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

6.  On 7 February 1983, the applicant was notified of the unit commander's intent to initiate separation action against him for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.  The commander stated the action was based on the fact that the applicant was assigned to the unit on 15 June 1982; however, he failed to report until 20 July 1982, which resulted in him being declared absent without leave for 35 days.  The commander further stated the applicant's duty performance was poor, to include being consistently late and sleeping on duty.  He had received three Article 15s and he was informed that further conduct of this nature would result in a recommendation for discharge.  Following the counseling the applicant was found asleep on duty, was consequently relieved from duty, and then failed to attend an in ranks inspection.
 
7.  On 16 February 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a discharge, and the rights available to him.  He further acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.  The applicant elected not to make a statement in his behalf.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 15 March 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year and 28 days of creditable active military service with no lost time recorded on his DD Form 214.

10.  There is no evidence that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  The applicant provides a Psychiatrist Note - Initial Evaluation, dated              15 March 2010.  He reported that he was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in jail in 2000.  The applicant also admitted a history of drug use from          age 9 which included marijuana, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, and PCP.  A medical doctor diagnosed the applicant as such:

* Axis I:  Bipolar, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and impulse control disorder
* Axis II:  Deferred
* Axis III:  Hepatitis C, Hypertension
* Axis IV:  Homeless, unemployed, trauma history, limited social supports
* Axis V:  55

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

13.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions are noted; however, his record is void of and he provided insufficient evidence in support of his contention that his mental health issues were ignored at the time of his discharge.  Contrary to the applicant's belief, he was psychiatrically evaluated and there were no signs of psychosis or perceptual disorders (although there may be signs he failed to list his previous drug use when he enlisted).  He was subsequently cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

2.  The available evidence shows his duty performance was tarnished by a history of negative counseling and instances of NJP.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him.

3.  The evidence further shows his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no evidence of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  His general discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Additionally, the ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veteran's benefits.  In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to grant him 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)                                         AR20140010874





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140010874



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1