APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  His discharge is unjust and cruel because the VA will not give him any relief for a service-connected disability.  

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

He had prior Army National Guard service.  While on active duty for training, he had a 6-day period of being absent without leave (AWOL).  On 27 July 1963, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  

On 23 December 1963, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for illegally using another person’s pass and identification card.

On 29 October 1964, the applicant received gunshot wounds to the lower abdomen during a hunting accident.  The accident was determined to be in line of duty.  He required extensive medical treatment.

On 29 July 1965, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL from 7 June - 7 July 1965.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to hard labor without confinement for 3 months and to forfeit $50 pay for      3 months. 

On 27 January 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL from 1 August - 22 December 1965.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $80 pay for 6 months.

A mental health evaluation determined the applicant was mentally responsible and that medical discharge was not warranted.

On 10 March 1966, separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness was initiated.

On 10 March 1966, the applicant waived his right to appear before a board of officers.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 19 March 1966, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of creditable active service and had 283 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following:  frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgraded discharge on 15 June 1971 and 8 July 1980.

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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering the length of his AWOL.  He had a right to present his case before a board of officers and waived that opportunity.

3.  The applicant may submit a request for waiver to the VA requesting medical care as an exception to policy.  He should fully explain to them his reasons for going AWOL and note the fact that the accident that caused his disability was determined to be in line of duty.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director