MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029108

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr. John D. Miller		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is a Vietnam veteran and his nation treated those veterans like outcasts.  The Persian Gulf veterans received a heroes’ welcome and he wants to be shown that the nation does care for the Vietnam veterans the same way.  He was very young when he enlisted.  He got scared in basic and went absent without leave (AWOL).  The stockades trained him.  He did well in Vietnam.  He was wounded there but his records do not show his Purple Heart.  Leaving Germany, he felt he was lucky not to be back in the stockade.  He provides four letters of support from his family as supporting evidence

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no contention.

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

He was born on 29 August 1950.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on                 19 November 1968.

On 8 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 7 January – 25 April 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $68.00 pay for 6 months.  

On 3 July 1969, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 2 – 6 June 1969 (AWOL from the Parolee Barracks).  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and to forfeit $68.00 pay.

On 23 October 1969, the applicant was released from confinement and reassigned to attend advanced individual training after which he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Infantryman Indirect Fire Crewman).

On 25 April 1970, the applicant was assigned to Vietnam where he performed duties as an ammunition bearer and automatic rifleman.  He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star Medal and was reassigned to Germany on 6 May 1971.

On 28 January 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty; disrespect towards a superior non-commissioned officer; willful damage to a glass door, property of the United States; and drunk on duty.

On 8 February 1972, 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 15 February 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  His Report of Medical Examination notes a 2 inch scar on his right forearm incurred in-service; however, his medical records are not available and there is no indication how the scar was received.

On 29 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 1 April 1972, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months and 29 days of creditable active service and had 288 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.  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, 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 Board notes the applicant was over 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment.  Thousands of 18-year olds enlisted or were inducted into the Army during the Vietnam era, served in Vietnam, and completed their terms of service honorably.

4.  The Board has considered the applicant’s good record of combat service but concludes it is insufficiently mitigating to overcome his prior unsatisfactory service and the seriousness of the offenses charged to warrant the relief requested.  

5.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was wounded in action and the applicant has provided no such evidence.

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

__EJO___  __JDM___  __JMA___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029108	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720401	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.