MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 March 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018491

	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. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his command was aware of his drug addiction; that he became very ill because of his addiction, which effected his ability to perform his duties and that his command did not offer medical treatment for his addiction.  He further states that he found out through the Department of Veterans Affairs, that the Army should have provided treatment for his addiction. However, all the Army did was continuously, charged him for being absent without leave (AWOL).  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1970, for 3 years.  
He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64A10 (Light Vehicle Driver).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

On 25 August 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial (SCM) of being AWOL from 2 to 8 July and from 13 July to 12 August 1970.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $88 pay, confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  

On 12 January 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $14.00 pay. 

On 11 February 1971, the applicant was convicted by a SCM for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority, for disobeying a lawful order and for being AWOL from 18 to 21 January 1971.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $90 pay and confinement at hard labor for 15 days.  On 15 March 1971, the applicant again was reported for being AWOL. 

On 31 May 1971, while in AWOL status the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for burglary, larceny and possession of stolen property.  On 9 June 1971, he appeared in court and entered a plea of guilty.  He was sentenced to 
90 days in civil confinement.  On 30 August 1971, the applicant was returned to military control and advised of his rights.       

The applicant’s military record indicates that court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL, however, the particulars are missing from his file.

On 16 September 1971, a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention. 
On 28 September 1971, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so. 

On 27 October 1971, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
10 November 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 10 months and 5 days of creditable active service and 340 days of lost time. 
 
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 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.

3. The applicant’s medical record does not indicate, that the applicant was treated for drug or alcohol abuse while in the service.  Further, there is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of his drug addiction.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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

__CWB___  _JHK____  __WTM___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX
CASE ID	AR1999018491	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990331	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711110	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200-chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.