MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041422

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers 		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: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unable to adapt to military life.  He was under the impression that his UD would be changed to a medical discharge after 6 months.  He also wants to know if he is entitled to medical benefits.

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

That on 5 March 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.  

On 1 June 1969, he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status. On 18 June 1969, civilian authorities in Paris, Kentucky apprehended him and returned him to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky, where he was placed in pretrial confinement until 26 June 1969.  On 28 June 1969, he departed AWOL again and he remained AWOL until he was returned to military control at Fort Knox on 15 August 1969.  He remained in confinement from 16 August-
12 October 1969.

On 29 October 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of the above periods of AWOL.  His sentence included hard labor without confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 3 months. 

On 2 November 1969, he left his unit at Fort Knox AWOL and he remained AWOL until 3 April 1970.  On 4 April 1970, he was placed in pretrial confinement. On 13 April 1970, he was counseled and he requested to be released to duty, which was granted.  However, he departed AWOL that very same day and he remained AWOL until 11 May 1970.

On 21 May 1970, the applicant underwent a physical examination by professionally trained personnel due to the fact that he was being considered for separation from the service.  He was determined to be in good health.

On 8 June 1970, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 
2 November 1969-3 April 1970 and from 13 April-11 May 1970.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months. 

On 25 June 1970, the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended for 6 months.

On 17 July 1970, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was determined to have “no underlying, previously unrecognized, medically disqualifying emotional illness.  He was ‘psychiatrically’ cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.”  He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and he had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in board proceedings.

On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, due to involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

On 17 July 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He also stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a UD.  He waived further representation by legal counsel and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 July 1970, both his unit and his intermediate commanders recommended separation with a UD.

On 7 August 1970, competent authority waived the requirement for further counseling and rehabilitation, approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  

On 13 August 1970, he was discharged.  He had completed 7 months and 
4 days of active military service and he had a total of 307 days lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.  He never completed his advanced individual training nor was he awarded a military occupational specialty.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable 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.  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.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  Professionally trained personnel determined that the applicant was in good health, he was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He has submitted no medical evidence to the contrary.  His performance and conduct clearly departed from acceptable Army standards and, in fact, he knowingly violated the Army’s policies when he continually went AWOL.

4.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.  He has provided no evidence that his case warranted processing through physical disability processing channels.

6.  Entitlement to veteran’s benefits is not a matter under the purview of this Board, but rests with the Department of Veteran Affairs.  Further, the lack of entitlements does not provide a basis upon which to grant an upgrade of a discharge.

7.  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

__mmd__  __aao___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041422	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001026	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700813	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A78.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7800	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.