MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045948

	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. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 was introduced to narcotic use while in Vietnam. He acquired an addiction to controlled substances there.  His record clearly shows his competence through the ensuing years, he continued to function and to make rank.  He was allowed to reenlist several times.  He has been substance-abuse free since shortly after his discharge.  He requests a reassessment of the circumstances in the context of addiction as a “disease” and not as a criminal act.  He accepts responsibility for his conduct but does not accept the determination that his whole career should be completely compromised due to one incident.  He provides his DD Form 214 as supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 June 1965.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk Typist).  He was awarded MOSs 71D (Legal Clerk) in 1967; 71L (Administrative Specialist) in 1969; and primary MOS 75Z (Personnel Senior Sergeant) in 1977.  He served in Vietnam from December 1965 through August 1966 as a 71B20 clerk typist and again from February 1968 through February 1969 as a 71C30 stenographer and a 71L40 administrative supervisor. He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 9 September 1969 and to Sergeant First Class, E-7 on 15 February 1977.

The applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediately reenlisting in 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1978.  He received a Report of Transfer or Discharge/Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, on all four of these occasions.  

On 5 December 1980, the applicant was diagnosed as dependent on heroin and was placed into detox with an admission date scheduled for the Extended Care Program in January 1981.  

On 8 January 1981, the applicant was arrested by German police for possession of heroin.  He was released to military authorities and placed in pre-trial confinement on 10 January 1981.

On 10 January 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with possession of 2.5 grams, more or less, of heroin. 

On 29 January 1981, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation.  He was found to be mentally responsible, to be 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.  

On 27 January 1981, 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 requested that he receive a general discharge.  He stated that he served two tours in Vietnam, the first tour during which he served as a rifleman/clerk (his Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that he served only as a clerk typist).  He had 27 semester hours towards his Bachelor’s degree and had been married for nine years.  His awards included the Combat Infantryman Badge (there is no evidence to show he was ever awarded this Badge and he did not meet the eligibility requirements for it), the Army Commendation Medal 3d award and the Army Good Conduct Medal 5th award.  He was first introduced to heroin during his previous tour in Germany from 1972 to 1974.  It presented him with no problem after his reassignment but his involvement began anew during his current tour around July 1979.  He became a heavy user around July 1980.   

The applicant received outstanding enlisted evaluation reports throughout his career until his last report for the period ending February 1981.  That enlisted evaluation report gave him a total score of 26 out of a maximum of 125.  Comments were made on the report regarding his loan debts to companies and private individuals which he failed to justly pay, his taking no initiative to resolve his indebtedness contrary to promises he had repeatedly made, and the counselings he received concerning his frequent tardiness and absences from his duty section but with noticeable improvements of a very short duration.  

On 9 February 1981, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 26 February 1981, 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 15 years, 7 months and 14 days of creditable active service and had 32 days of lost time (pretrial confinement). 

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 UOTHC 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 this 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 applicant states that he acquired an addiction to controlled substances while in Vietnam.  However, in his chapter 10 request he stated he was first introduced to heroin, the possession of which resulted in his discharge, during his previous tour in Germany from 1972 to 1974.  The applicant was a Staff Sergeant at that time.  He stated his involvement with heroin began anew during his last tour around July 1979 when he was a Sergeant First Class.  The Board 
concludes that a senior noncommissioned officer’s willingness to involve himself again with a well-known habit-forming, illegal drug is not a sufficiently mitigating circumstance.  The type of discharge given for his last reenlistment was and still is appropriate.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior outstanding record of service but notes that his honorable service was recognized on the four previous DD Forms 214 he had received.

4.  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

__jh____  __le____  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045948	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810226	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.