MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024255

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable, that the narrative reasons for separation be changed to the convenience of the government, and that his reentry (RE) code be changed to a “1” with a corresponding separation code.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because his first discharge was honorable, which shows that he was a good soldier.  He further states that he about 18 years of age at the time he went to Vietnam.  He was young, naïve, and was not prepared for what he experienced.  He continues by stating that he spent about 30 months in Vietnam, was wounded once, was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal for heroism and after his combat experience he lost his desire to be in the military.  He had over 6 years of service and only had one bad rating after his service in Vietnam.  Additionally, he never used drugs or alcohol while in the Army and simply saw too much combat at a young age.  Therefore the general discharge was unfair and if he were discharged today under current standards, he would have received an honorable discharge.   

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

The applicant enlisted with parental consent on 25 July 1967 for a period of 3 years and training under the combat arms airborne enlistment option.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Vietnam on 28 February 1968 for duty as an infantryman.  He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service.

On 15 September 1968, while still in Vietnam, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years, reclassification to the military occupational specialty of a motor transport operator, and present duty assignment.  He was promoted to the pay grade of   E-5 on 11 May 1969.

He departed Vietnam on 19 October 1970 and was transferred to Germany on 3 December 1970.  On 30 March 1971 he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.

On 29 October 1973 the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant’s conduct during the first 6 months of his rehabilitative transfer was fair and that the last 6 months had been totally unsatisfactory.  He further indicated that the applicant had committed the military offenses of disorderly conduct and resisting apprehension on 6 September 1971, drunken and disorderly conduct on 24 November 1972, disorderly conduct and interfering with the duties of a military policeman on 26 June 1973, traffic accident (failed to maintain control), AWOL from morning formation, and drunk driving and possession of two drivers licenses on 16 October 1973.  

After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged that he understood that he would receive no less that an general discharge and elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

The applicant’s commander also initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment on 30 October 1973 and the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment and the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 November 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  He had served 6 years, 3 months, and 27 days of total active service.  

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable or general discharge was authorized then just as it is under today’s standards for separation under chapter 13.

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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions that he received an award for heroism and that he never used alcohol while in the Army. However, they are not supported by the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application.  

5.  The applicant’s contention that he would not receive a general discharge for the same offenses under today’s standards is also without merit.  The current standards also provides for a general discharge.

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

___hof __  __mw___  __dw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024255	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/11/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  4	100.0300	
3.  191	110.0200	
4.		
5.		
6.