MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  30 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012169

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 honorable.  He submits character reference letters in support of his request.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was only 16 years of age and lied to join the Army.  He was so young that he could not cope with Vietnam and started using drugs.  He served his full time in Vietnam and has been punished enough.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 18 January 1971.  All of his enlistment and service records show his date of birth as 30 April 1953.  He completed training as a cook on 14 May 1971 and on 31 May 1971 he was arrested by civil authorities on charges of breaking and entering.  He was later found guilty of the lesser charge of trespassing.  On 14 June 1971 he was AWOL until 2 August 1971.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 48 days AWOL and reduced to grade E-2.

In November 1971 he was assigned to Vietnam where he served as a cook in two Army recreation centers and a support command in Saigon.  He was promoted to grade E-4 effective 1 June 1972.  The available record indicates that after his return to the US in August 1972 he was assigned to an Army hospital for a self referred drug abuse program.  He was in the hospital for 13 days and was placed on leave for 36 days.  He had admitted to using heroin for 5 months.  On19 October 1972 he was assigned to a transportation unit as a cook.

He was AWOL again from 11 December 1972 to 10 January 1973.  His punishment under Article 15, UCMJ included reduction to grade E-3.  His AWOL period also caused his voluntary enrollment in the Army drug treatment program to be terminated.  His termination notice also noted that he had tested positive twice for drug use since his last report.

On 17 October 1973 charges were preferred for 95 days AWOL, his third offense.  On 19 October 1973, after consultation with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he might be deprived of many or all Federal and state veterans benefits based on the type of discharge he might receive.  In an attached statement the applicant noted that he entered the Army at age 17 and as he got older he realized that he made a mistake.  His mother spent all her money on whiskey and lost her house, which is why he went AWOL.  He wants to go home with his mother at all cost.

The separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed reduction to grade E-1 and issuance of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant was discharge under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 2 years, 5 months and 12 days creditable service and 125 days lost time.
On 8 November 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB found that the applicant’s numerous acts of indiscipline were not a direct result of his admitted drug use.

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.

The character reference letters provided by the applicant state their belief that he suffered from severe emotional and mental stress from his Vietnam service and possible exposure to Agent Orange.

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 Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However, either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record does not support them.  He was over 17 ½ years of age on enlistment, 20 ½ years of age at discharge, and was AWOL for 48 days and arrested by civil authorities before his admitted drug use.

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 and proper consultation with a military lawyer was provided.

3.  The applicant’s age at enlistment, 9 months Vietnam service with admitted drug use, family problems at home, and letters of support from friends do not mitigate his long and early history of indiscipline which formed the basis for his separation.

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

__EB___  ___LE___  ___JS____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012169	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990930	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.