MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023309

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth Wright		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:  That he was suffering from what he believed was confusion from his military service in Vietnam. 

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

The applicant was inducted on 3 July 1968 and served as a light weapons infantryman.

The applicant served in Vietnam from 8 December 1968 to 15 May 1969 and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal w/60 device, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Marksmanship Badge (Rifle M-16) and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

On 6 August 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to be at his appointed place of duty on 2 August 1969.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and 7 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant departed AWOL on 27 November 1969 and remained AWOL until 26 December 1969.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 1 April 1970, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year,
7 months and 29 days of creditable service and had 30 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 14 October 1998 for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitation (15 years). 

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, it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was suffering from what he believed was confusion from his military service in Vietnam; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions. 

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

RVO____  SC______  KW_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023309	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990513	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700401	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.