IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  1 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020907 


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 earlier request to change his uncharacterized discharge to general under honorable conditions.  He also requests correction of his records to show he was medically discharged as a new issue.

2.  The applicant states:

* he requested a discharge upgrade twice and was denied
* he just got his medical records

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 3647 (Inpatient Treatment Record Cover Sheet), dated 3 February 1987
* Standard Form 509 (Clinical Record – Doctor's Progress Notes), dated 
3-12 February 1987
* Standard Form 513 (Medical Record – Consultation Sheet), dated 9 February 1987
* DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 13 February 1986 (should read 1987)
* Optional Forms 275 (Medical Record Report), dated 4 March 1987
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Progress Notes, dated 17 November 2014



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides that an applicant may request reconsideration of an ABCMR decision if the ABCMR receives the request for reconsideration within 1 year of the ABCMR's original decision and if the ABCMR has not previously reconsidered the matter.  The ABCMR staff will review the request to determine if it contains evidence (including, but not limited to, any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the ABCMR's prior consideration.  If new evidence has been submitted, the request will be considered by the ABCMR to determine whether the new evidence is sufficient to demonstrate material error or injustice.  If no new evidence is found, the ABCMR staff will return the application without action.

2.  He provided no new evidence or argument to support his request for correction of the characterization of his service.  Therefore, this portion of his request will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 September 1986.

4.  He provided a DA Form 3647, dated 3 February 1987, which shows he was admitted to the hospital because of suicidal ideation while intoxicated with alcohol.  He was diagnosed with resolved suicidal ideation episode, continuous alcohol dependence, occupational problem (military maladjustment), and bilateral bunionettes.  This form states the applicant is presently being evaluated for a medical board for bunionettes in his feet and he had a 90-day temporary physical profile for the condition.

5.  He provided a Standard Form 509, dated 3 February 1987, which states a medical evaluation board (MEB) was pending for bilateral service-aggravated bunionettes.

6.  He provided a Standard Form 513, dated 3 February 1987, which shows he was evaluated by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program and diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

7.  On 6 February 1987, he was counseled on his self-proclaimed inability to adjust to military circumstances and surroundings.  He was offered assistance from the chain of command but expressed a desire to separate from the service.  His commander also explained he would follow-up on the medical and administrative case being made for the applicant's separation.

8.  On 10 February 1987, he was counseled concerning his personal and family problems.  The chaplain stated the nature of the applicant's problems were depression, immaturity, alcohol and problems at home in his opinion.  The applicant informed the chaplain he had suicidal thoughts when intoxicated.

9.  He provided a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 February 1986 (should read 1987), which shows he was found mentally responsible.  The psychiatrist stated the applicant had an alcohol problem.  The applicant informed the psychiatrist he was having difficulties in adjusting to the military.  The psychiatrist recommended consideration of the applicant for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command, to include separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows he underwent an MEB.

11.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of entry-level separation.  The immediate commander stated the applicant was diagnosed by the division psychiatrist as being an alcoholic and adjustment failure.

12.  On 4 March 1987, he acknowledged receipt of the separation notification in accordance with chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He acknowledged he understood he would receive an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service if the request for discharge were approved.  He further acknowledged he would not be permitted to apply for reenlistment in the U.S. Army within 2 years of his separation.  The applicant did not elect to submit statements in his own behalf.

13.  On 5 March 1987, the applicant acknowledged that he had the right to request a separation medical examination; he did not request a separation medical examination.

14.  On 10 March 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation.

15.  On 19 March 1987, he was discharged by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11.  He completed 6 months and 10 days of creditable active service.

16.  He provided numerous VA Progress Notes, dated 2014, which show he was treated for depression, bipolar disorder, suicidal ideation, and alcohol abuse/dependence.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry-level status.  This provision applies to individuals who demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline for military service; or they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy applies to Soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline.  Service will be described as uncharacterized under the provisions of this chapter.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 defines entry-level status for Regular Army Soldiers as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service.

19.  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.  The unfitness must be of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his or her employment on active duty.

20.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although medical evidence provided by the applicant shows he was being evaluated/pending an MEB for bunionettes prior to his discharge, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he underwent an MEB.

2.  The evidence shows:

* the applicant's commander indicated he would follow up on the applicant's medical case
* the applicant elected not to undergo a separation medical examination 2 weeks prior to his discharge
3.  There is no evidence showing he could not perform his duties while serving on active duty.  Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to show a medical discharge was warranted.

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 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)                                         AR20140020907



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020907



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1