MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12689
   AR1998012576

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth, immaturity and limited education (8th grade).  He joined the Army to be an infantry soldier and go to Vietnam, not to be a cook.  He felt betrayed by his recruiter so he went AWOL.  He contends that once he was sent to Vietnam he was happy, promoted to E-3 and being considered for E-4 when the trouble began.  He began using heroin in Vietnam, requested help for his drug problem and was offered the amnesty program.  Instead of helping, he became addicted to alcohol.  He also claims he was drunk on the night he got into trouble.  He goes on to state that he was told he would probably get a general discharge if he signed a Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service.  Only later, he realized he got a bad discharge that would haunt him for the rest of his life.  He contends if he had known that, he would have gone to court-martial.  He acknowledged that he made many mistakes in his military service; however, he was close to his discharge date and should have been given a general discharge.  He states that under current standards, he would not have received such a discharge.  He further states that he would have served honorably and been an excellent soldier if he had been assigned to the Combat Infantry Training that he was promised by his recruiter.  He contends the discharge is too harsh.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, numerous character reference letters, service records and his arrest record.                    

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

He enlisted on 10 September 1968 for a period of 2 years.  While in basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 22 October 1968 for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

While in advanced individual training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, NJP was imposed against the applicant on 17 December 1968 for assaulting a military policeman.  He received his third NJP on 23 January 1969 for being AWOL from 18 January 1969 to 22 January 1969.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.     

On 16 July 1969 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial (SPCM) of two specifications of AWOL (11 March 1969 to 12 May 1969; and 16 June 1969 to 7 July 1969).  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for
6 months and forfeiture of $85.00 pay per month for 6 months.  The convening authority approved confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $82.00 pay per month for 6 months on 18 July 1969.  On 19 August 1969 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to forfeiture of pay was suspended until
2 October 1969.   The unexecuted portions of the sentence to confinement and forfeitures were remitted effective 2 October 1969.    

On 8 May 1970 the applicant was again convicted by SPCM of two specifications of AWOL (4 October 1969 to 18 February 1970; and 21 February 1970 to
14 March 1970).  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for
101 days, forfeiture of $45.00 for 6 months and a reduction to E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 5 June 1970.  On 13 July 1970 the unexecuted portion of the sentence was suspended effective 14 July 1970 for 5 months. 

On 11 August 1970 and 9 November 1970, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and being AWOL from 
30 October 1970 to 7 November 1970.  

He was transferred to Vietnam on 3 December 1970, served as a rifleman and was advanced to E-3 in March 1971.

On 30 June 1971 charges were preferred against the applicant for being disrespectful toward two superior commissioned officers (SCO), assaulting two NCO’s and a SCO, being incapacitated for duty as a result of indulgence in intoxicating liquor, and communicating threats to kill two SCO’s and an NCO.

On 16 July 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could receive an undesirable discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 10 August 1971 the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
16 August 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 8 months, and 9 days of total active service and had 453 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 8 September 1979 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to general.  He contended that he was young and did not realize what he was doing, he had very little education and did not understand the situation until it was too late.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal on 11 May 1981. 
   
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.   
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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted or the evidence of record and his undistinguished record of service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

4.  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

__vbc___  ___jhl ___  ___aao__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12689/AR1998012576	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/08/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A94.07		
2.  110.000		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.