MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            28 January 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12816
                                              AR1998012254

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went to Vietnam as an 18 year old boy and came home a very confused, mixed up drug addict.  He goes on to state that he did not begin to get into serious trouble until he returned from Vietnam and he now needs help, only to be informed that because of his discharge he cannot receive the help he needs.  He continues by stating that he only recently discovered that he could petition to have his discharge upgraded and he asks the Board to grant his request so that he can receive help with his alcoholism and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He further states that he has floundered through life knowing that the whole world was against him and he figured that was his lot in life.  He asks that the Board give him a new lease on life by upgrading his discharge.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in Baltimore, Maryland with parental consent on 10 October 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to undergo basic training.  He completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina to attend advanced individual training (AIT).  While in AIT nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on two occasions for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeitures of pay. 

He completed his AIT and was transferred to Hawaii on 29 February 1968 for duty as a supply clerk.  The applicant went AWOL from 19 October to 21 October 1968 and again the record is silent as to punishment.  He was then transferred to Vietnam on 2 November 1968.

While in Vietnam he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 8 January 1969.  However, on 13 August 1969, NJP was imposed against him for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

Upon completion of his tour in Vietnam on 9 September 1969, the applicant was transferred to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.  On 13 January 1970 NJP was imposed against the applicant for four specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant again went AWOL from 3 February to 9 February 1970 and NJP was imposed against him for those offenses.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 2 March 1970 of being AWOL from 16 February to 19 February 1970.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days, reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay.

He went AWOL on 1 April until 6 April 1970 and again went AWOL on 8 April 1970 and he remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 27 April 1970 and was returned to military control on 29 April 1970 and placed in pre-trial confinement.

The applicant was released from pre-trial confinement on 4 May 1970 and went AWOL the same day.  He remained AWOL until he was apprehended by civil authorities for burglary in Baltimore, Maryland on 6 May 1970.  He remained in the hands of civil authorities pending trial for charges of burglary until he was released on 4 June 1970.  He again went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Meade, Maryland on 6 July 1970 and charges were preferred against him.   

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric evaluation on 16 July 1970 and informed the examining psychiatrist that he used a number of drugs for a number of years, including heroin and that he had joined a methadone program in Washington, DC and successfully kicked the habit.  He further indicated that he had not used heroin since February of 1970.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible, was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and that he was mentally responsible and had the capacity to participate in separation proceedings.

On 28 July 1970 the applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness based on habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking.  The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant again went AWOL on 3 August 1970 and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 14 August 1970 and charges were again preferred against him.

He went AWOL again on 25 August 1970 and remained AWOL until he was arrested by civil authorities on 10 September 1970 for two counts of breaking and entering.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 4 December 1970 and he directed that the applicant be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 4 December 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  He had served 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days of total active service and had 87 days of lost time up until 6 July 1970.  His DD Form 214 for reasons not explained in the available records do not account for his 70 days of lost time subsequent to that date.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 27 July 1971 for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He contended at that time that he had become addicted to drugs while in Vietnam which led to his problems in the Army and that he was in a hospital undergoing drug treatment when he was discharged.  The ADRB denied his request on 22 May 1972.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that members having undesirable habits or traits of character were subject to separation for unsuitability.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The applicant’s indisciplines began immediately upon entry into the service and continued throughout his entire period of service.  Accordingly, his record of undistinguished service and disciplinary record does not warrant further relief.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rwg___  __ls ____  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12816/AR1998012254	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/12/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFITNESS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.5000		
2.  144.9317		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.