MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  8 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000048581

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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 (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He appeared before a Veterans panel and was found honorable for veterans purposes and the evidence showed he served honorably. He also states that he suffers from Vietnam mental stress and has suffered enough.

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

He enlisted in the Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 1 March 1967.

He attained the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3, on 6 September 1967 and specialist four, pay grade E-4, on 5 March 1968.

On 16 April 1968, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for following another vehicle too closely, thereby causing an accident.  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture and restriction.

He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 8 May to 6 June 1969.  He was reported AWOL again for the period 1 July to 29 July 1969.

He was dropped from the rolls as a deserted on 30 July 1969.

On 21 October 1969, he was returned to military control and charged with violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for AWOL from 1 July 1969.

On 2 November 1969, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged he understood that his request could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

On 15 December 1969, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an UD certificate.

On 14 January 1970, he was reduced to pay grade E-1.

He was discharged on 5 February 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court-Martial.   He had a total of 2 years, 6 months and 15 days net active service.  He had 143 days lost time.

On 21 September 1971, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade.

On 8 September 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found the applicant’s claim for post traumatic stress disorder not to be service connected.  He was also advised that the VA, in an Administrative Decision on 17 August 1998 found his service from 1 March 1967 to 5 February 1970 to be honorable for VA purposes only.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided at the time, 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 a UD.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant has not convinced the Board that he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity to justify the relief he now requests.  

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.  He should not be permitted to change his mind about the discharge at this late date.

3.  The applicant has not submitted sufficient probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of the request.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the VA found his period of service to be honorable for VA purposes only.  The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, uses its own rules to rate compensation based on military service.  The Board is not bound by VA decisions.

5.  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.

6.  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

_jl____  ___dh_____  ___gp_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048581	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.