MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041461

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 an honorable discharge and he receive full medical benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the discharge was unjust and he was given no reason for the discharge.  He provides a supporting statement wherein a friend noted that the applicant could not read or write very well, he had had to quit school.  In Vietnam he had witnessed his best friends murdered and had killed God knows how many people.

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

He was born on 4 January 1949 and completed 1 year of high school.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score was 34, category III.  He received a pre-induction physical examination on 9 September 1968 and indicated on     SF 88, Report of Medical Examination, that he had a drug or narcotic habit and an excessive drinking habit.  He was inducted on 19 May 1969.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 64A (Light Vehicle Driver).  

The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) for 6 days and accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on one occasion for sleeping on guard duty while in basic combat training.  He apparently also was admitted to a State hospital in December 1969 for drug use. However, he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” in basic combat training and AIT.  He was promoted to Private First Class, E-3 on            7 March 1970.

On 19 March 1970, the applicant arrived in Vietnam.  He was assigned to Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 46th Infantry as a light vehicle driver.

On 4 June 1970, the applicant completed a psychiatric evaluation.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He was referred because of a poor attitude toward the military as manifested in disrespect of authority, noncooperativeness and the abuse of drugs.  His intelligence was considered to be within normal limits.  There was no evidence of drugs or alcohol present.  There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis.  He was psychiatrically cleared for processing for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

On 5 June 1970, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 6 June 1970, the applicant was notified that proceedings to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness were being initiated.  The separation was recommended because of a defective attitude and performance of assigned tasks.  Several statements from his chain of command were included.  One statement from the Property Book Officer noted the applicant was initially assigned to the supply section as a light vehicle driver but after about 2 weeks it was noticed he was shirking his duties and his dress and personal appearance were below standards.  He was of no use to the section because he could not drive because of his use of narcotics.  The applicant’s platoon sergeant, as platoon sergeant for the S-4 (logistics) section, noted that the applicant had been a problem since he was assigned to the section.

On 7 June 1970, the applicant was advised of his rights by counsel.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers; waived personal appearance before such a board; waived representation by counsel and did not to make a statement on his own behalf.

On 8 June 1970, the applicant’s commander recommended his discharge because of defective attitude, excessive drug abuse and frequent incidents of neglecting his duties and discreditable conduct with military authorities. 

On 18 June 1970, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 29 June 1970, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 5 days of creditable active service and had 6 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness.  Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.

On 7 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

In 1994, the VA determined the applicant was eligible for medical treatment for his right knee condition and hearing loss.  The VA denied his claim for spinal condition, tympanic membrane peroration with drainage and substance abuse.

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 with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The Board notes the applicant was 20 years old at the time of his induction.  He had completed one year of high school and had scored in category III on his AFQT.  He was able to earn “excellent” conduct and efficiency during basic combat training and AIT so he knew what the military’s standards of conduct were.  The Board also notes that the applicant served in Vietnam for only            3 months either as a driver in a headquarters supply section or in other duties in a headquarters section.  He was not subject to even the normal stresses that an infantryman in Vietnam would have been.  The Board finds no evidence of circumstances that would mitigate his misconduct of drug abuse.

4.  The Board has no jurisdiction over VA service-connection determinations.  The applicant should address any concerns over such determinations and the type of treatment the VA will provide to the VA.

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

__jhl___  __jns___  __mhm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041461	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.