MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            14 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020431

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that during the Vietnam era he was an activist in the anti-Vietnam movement, and as a result of it, he got into trouble.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 24 September 1968 and served as a clerk typist.

Beginning in January 1970, the applicant began receiving several nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and was convicted by two special courts-martial for instances of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, being absent from his appointed place of duty, wearing an improper uniform, breaking restriction, disobeying a lawful order and AWOL (52 days).  

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 July 1970, for the aforementioned offenses.

On 20 August 1970, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 24 August 1970 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which diagnosed the applicant as having a passive aggressive personality.  The psychiatrist also determined that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed the sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 24 August 1970 and was found qualified for separation. 

On 27 August 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 31 August 1970.  He had a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 17 days of creditable service and 52 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 5 July 1976.  The ADRB determined he was properly discharged and denied his request on 23 November 1977.

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge on
29 November 1982.  The ADRB once again determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 3 July 1984.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was an activist during the Vietnam era; however, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  The Board also noted the applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf during the discharge process, but he declined to do so.

2.  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 VA benefits.

3.  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.

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

5.  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.

6.  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

KLW____  AAO____  TBR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020431	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990414	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700831	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.108		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.