MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  19 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001051230

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 should be upgraded in order to receive VA benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his undesirable discharge was wrong and that he has submitted new evidence.  He also states that he is unable to receive VA benefits due to his discharge.  In support of his application he submits two DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and several medical documents.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 
12 September 1967 as a field artillery crewman.  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 12 May 1968 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 13 May 1968 and served in Vietnam from 31 July 1968 to 29 July 1969. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 2 February 1970 of being AWOL from 5 November to 30 December 1969 (56 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 August 1975 for being AWOL from 25 February to 23 October 1970 (241 days), from 26 October to 10 November 1970 (16 days), and from 2 December 1970 to 12 August 1975 (1,714 days).  

Records show that the applicant was confined by civilian authorities from 11 November 1970 to 19 November 1970 (9 days).

The applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 is not available in
his records.

On 19 August 1975, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval 
of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service.

On 10 October 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 24 October 1975.  He had a total
of 2 years, 6 months, and 10 days of creditable service and 2,043 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review by this Board.  He submits a copy of a clinical psychologist’s report from 6 March 1990.  The resulting diagnosis given was Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (provisional), alcohol dependence in remission, antisocial personality disorder with explosive/aggressive features, and history of chronic back injury, recurrent and severe headaches.
The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) on 31 May 1977.  The ADRB informed the applicant that he was not eligible under the SDRP and that he must have been discharged during the period 4 August 1964 through 28 March 1973.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 28 June 1985.  The ADRB examined the applicant’s entire record of service and noted that the applicant’s record did reflect some psychological problems.  The ADRB, however, determined that the applicant’s 
numerous periods of AWOL were not directly attributed to his mental disorder and that due to his AWOLs, he was never under military control long enough to have a sustained period of psychological diagnoses afforded.  The ADRB noted that the applicant’s record of total absences was substantiated by his record
and determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 27 October 1986.

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 notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was wrong based on the evidence submitted.  The Board also notes that a copy of the applicant’s request for discharge is unavailable for review by this Board and that the evidence submitted by the applicant is after his separation from service.
The Board further notes that a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 discharge must be voluntarily requested by the soldier.  However, it appears
the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service instead of trial by court-martial.

2.  The Board notes the decision by the ADRB that the applicant’s record did  reflect some psychological problems, that the applicant’s numerous periods of AWOLs were not directly attributed to his mental disorder, and that due to his AWOLs, he was never under military control long enough to have a sustained period of psychological diagnoses afforded.  The Board also notes that the ADRB indicated that the applicant’s record of total absences was substantiated by his record and denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 

3.  While the Board is empathetic, it does not change the character of service for the purpose of obtaining eligibility for benefits.

4.  The applicant’s 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 for that separation 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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___js__  __be___  ___cg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051230	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751024	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200. C 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.