PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  24 February 1999                         
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AC98-12294
                                             AR1999014971

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that a fully honorable discharge would allow him access to Department of Veteran Affairs benefits (DVA), especially the hospital care he was able to receive after the initial upgrade of his discharge to a GD under the provisions of the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special).  Later, he was denied DVA benefits after the GD was not affirmed.  Further, he feels that his mental/medical condition as a result of his Vietnam experiences constitutes extenuating, mitigating circumstances (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  He also has cancer.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 February 1968, for 3 years and training in Military Occupational Specialty 62B (Engineer Equipment Repairman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.  

On 18 December 1968, the applicant was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  On 21 March 1969, while assigned in the RVN, he was convicted by a special court-martial of sleeping on guard duty (17 February 1969).  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, and forfeiture of pay. 

His conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent through December 1969.
On 27 January 1970, he was reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  
On 11 May 1970, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 April through 5 May 1970.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. 

On 3 December 1971, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 18 days of active military service and he had 470 days lost time. 

On 20 May 1977, the applicant's UD was upgraded to a GD under the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special).  On 31 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied an affirmation of the upgraded discharge under current standards.

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 a UD.

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.  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.

2.  While the entire discharge packet is not a matter of record, other evidence of record indicates court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for a period of AWOL from 14 July 1970 through 29 September 1971.  In view of these circumstances, he would have requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by curt-martial.  In doing so, the applicant would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The, applicant was appropriately discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  In 1971, PTSD had not been diagnosed as being an illness.

5.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the DVA for further assistance.

6.  The Board took into consideration all the applicant's service to include his service in the RVN, the infractions of discipline and the seriousness of the offenses.  He had a total of 470 days lost time.  His service record does not show sufficient merit to upgrade the discharge under review.

7.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

8.  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

JDM_____  MDJ____  BJE____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12294/ AR1999014971	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	24 February 1999	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711203	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Request honorable discharge.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.