MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           13 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048984

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley Powell		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he “pulled” over two tours of duty of combat in Vietnam, but not always in South Vietnam.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 September 1967 and completed training as a field artillery crewman.  He served in Vietnam from 24 February 1968 through 16 February 1969 and again from 30 April 1970 through 3 December 1971.  During his second tour in Vietnam, he reenlisted for a term of four years.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of sergeant in June 1970.  He was awarded the National Defense Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star and three bronze service stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.

After returning to the United States, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 December 1971 to 9 January 1972 (13 days).

On 6 October 1972, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey a lawful regulation.  He received nonjudicial punishment again on 7 December 1972 for being AWOL from 23 November 1972 through 5 December 1972 (13 days).

Evidence of record shows the applicant was AWOL from 19 January 1973 to 25 January 1973 and from 9 February 1973 to 11 February 1973 (10 days).

On 5 March 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 February 1973 to 24 February 1974 (365 days).

On 14 March 1974, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 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 that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an under other than honorable conditions discharge were issued.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

On 2 April 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed a general discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 15 April 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 2 years 5 months and 15 days active service this period of service and 5 years, 5 months and 16 days total active service.  He had 411 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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 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, and there are no indications of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s two tours of duty in Vietnam.  The Board also noted that an undesirable discharge was normally issued for separation requested under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  It is also apparent that the separation approval authority demonstrated leniency in granting a general discharge instead of an undesirable discharge.  

5.  After considering all the factors in this case, the Board determined that the applicant’s service in Vietnam did not warrant upgrading his discharge to honorable in view of the seriousness of his offenses. 
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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JH______  SP______  HBO_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048984	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010213	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740415	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the Service-in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.