MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051565

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged for medical disability but no follow up was done.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 December 1969.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic).  He was honorably discharged on       29 December 1970 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 30 December 
1970 and again on 23 May 1971 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on   24 May 1971.  He was assigned to Hawaii on or about 12 July 1971.

On 18 January 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order.

On 21 April 1972, the applicant volunteered to accept rehabilitative treatment for drug abuse under the provisions of the Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).

On 5 June 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with disobeying a lawful order, absence without leave (AWOL) from 24 April – 23 May 1972, two specifications of absenting himself from his place of duty, and stealing five gallons of gasoline of a value of about $1.05. 

On 6 June 1972, 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 made a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated that from December 1969 until the present he served well.  However, he did not feel that he could continue to serve honorably as he should.  He requested that his past excellent record be considered and he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.  

On 19 June 1972, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of his request.  He noted that his personal evaluation of the applicant indicated that his basic problem revolved around his financial difficulties and an inability to face his personal problems.  His disciplinary problems started after his dependents arrived.  He expressed a strong desire to be released from the service in any way possible.  While in the stockade he cut his wrist.  Although the normal means of eliminating an individual with the applicant’s problems would be through Army Regulations 635-212 or 635-200, the same end could be achieved through this request in a more expeditious manner.

On 24 June 1972, the applicant was additionally charged with intentionally injuring himself by cutting his wrist with a razor blade.  This injury was later determined by a line of duty investigation to have been incurred not in line of duty due to his own misconduct.

On 5 July 1972, the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination.  He was diagnosed with immature personality, severe, manifested by excessive authority conflicts, manipulativeness, poor overall performance in the military, poor judgment in interpersonal relationships and inability to adapt sufficiently to military routine.  His behavior was determined not to be due to emotional problems of a neurotic or psychotic nature.  He was found to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to have sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

The applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  He noted on the Report of Medical Examination,         SF Form 88, that he was “in good health.”

On 19 July 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 24 July 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable, discharge under other than honorable conditions, 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 2 years, 6 months and 8 days of creditable active service and had 38 days of lost time. 

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 under other than honorable conditions 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 evidence of record does not show that the applicant was discharged for medical disability.  He voluntarily requested a separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.  He had received a neuropsychiatric examination prior to separation and his behavior was determined not to be due to emotional problems of a neurotic or psychotic nature.  He indicated on his SF Form 88 that he was in good health.  His separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  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

__jns___  __le____  __cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051565	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	199720724	
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.