MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  28 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040311

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		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 under honorable conditions.  He also states that his Social Security Number (SSN) and date of birth (DOB) are incorrect.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was convicted by civilian authorities and his discharge should reflect his military service.  He provides no supporting documentation for the change of his SSN or DOB.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 6 June 1968.  After completion of training as a wheeled vehicle mechanic he was assigned to Vietnam.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 25 January 1969.

On 19 August 1969 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to obey a general regulation.  He was reduced to pay grade E-3.  On 31 August 1969 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for an unknown offense.  He was reduced to pay grade E-2 for misconduct.  On 9 February 1970 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 7 days AWOL.  He was punished with a fine.

It appears that the applicant volunteered for assignment to Vietnam and on 10 June 1970 was enroute to Vietnam.  Effective 12 June 1970 he was placed in an AWOL status.

Based on the available record, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities on 29 January 1971 and charged with possession and sale of a hallucinogen and maintaining a place for keeping or selling hallucinogens.  On 16 April 1971 he plead guilty to three charges and was sentenced to imprisonment for one to ten years.

On 12 July 1971 the applicant was informed of the command’s intent to involuntarily separate him based on his civil conviction.  He waived his rights to present his case to a board of officers or to submit a statement in his own behalf. On 9 September 1971 the command forwarded the request for involuntary separation with an undesirable discharge.  On 20 September 1971 the separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge.

Effective 27 September 1971 the applicant was separated under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the authority of Army Regulation 635-206, based on his civil conviction. He was credited with 2 years active duty and 480 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided for the involuntary separation of an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of 1 year or more.  The requirement for a board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.  When such separation was warranted an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate.

The applicant’s enlistment documents, which he authenticated with his signature, shows the same DOB as reflected on his separation document ((DD Form 214).  The applicant’s SSN reflected throughout his available record is the same SSN shown on his DD Form 214.

On 27 August 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Information from the applicant’s FBI file shows that, from October 1974 to July 2000, the applicant was arrested and convicted six times on illegal drug related charges and is considered a habitual offender.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was not guilty of a military offense at the time of his discharge lacks credibility.  He had been AWOL for over 7 months when he was apprehended by civil authorities.  It is just as likely that he would have been court-martialed and discharged or discharged in lieu of court-martial for the lengthy AWOL offense and missing movement to Vietnam.  Additionally, based on the applicant’s continued criminal activities, there is no basis for consideration of a discharge upgrade based on clemency.

3.  The records do not contain, and the applicant has not submitted any, supporting documentation or other evidence that his DOB and SSN shown in his records are incorrect.

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 this 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

__ro___  __dh____  __ew____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040311	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000928	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710927	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.	100.09	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.