MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:                            12 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:                    AR2000042232

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Carol Jo Suiter		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge was unjust and that he did not use drugs or alcohol before departing for Vietnam.  He also states that he is unable to receive VA benefits due to his discharge and that he needs assistance for his addiction.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 29 April 1966 and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 13 April 1967 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 14 April 1967.

Beginning in September 1967, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements and nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of AWOL (59 days), for persistent indebtedness, failure to manage his marital affairs, for disobeying a lawful order, for violation of a lawful general regulation and for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer.  His punishments consisted of forfeitures of pay, restriction and extra duties.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 13 December 1968 of being AWOL from 1 October 1967 to 8 November 1968 (404 days).  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 14 April 1969 of being AWOL from 5 April 1969 to 7 April 1969 (2 days).  The charges were dismissed on the same day for lack of a speedy trial.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 1 November 1973.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 18 April 1974 of being derelict in the performance of his duties and was found not guilty on the same day.

On 2 October 1974 the applicant was apprehended for possession of a controlled
substance (marijuana) at Fort Leonard, Missouri.

The applicant’s court-martial charge sheet pertaining to his possession of a controlled substance is not available in the applicant’s records.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 23 December 1974 and was found qualified for separation. 

On 30 December 1974, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 7 January 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 16 January 1975.  He had a total of 7 years, 2 months, and 12 days of creditable service and 547 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge with its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his undesirable discharge was unjust, that he did not use drugs or alcohol before departing for Vietnam, that he is unable to receive VA benefits and that he needs assistance with his addiction; however, the applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges for the purpose of obtaining eligibility for benefits.

3.  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 VA benefits.

4.  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.
5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

6.  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.

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:

CMF____  FE______  CJS____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042232	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750116	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.