MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057151

	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	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that is undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served his country well.  He was sent to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), was wounded, and received the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for valor.  He contends that he broke down after returning to the United States and currently suffers from a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He further states that he was and still is dealing with PTSD and that his psychiatrist supports this request.  In support of his application he submits copies of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge 
(DD Form 214), a certificate showing his award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), and a newspaper article describing his actions of 11 May 1969, resulting in the award of the BSM for valor.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 18 September 1968 for 2 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned to the RVN for duty as a scout observer (11D) with the 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Division.  He attained the rank of specialist four on 18 April 1969.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 28 January 1970, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  His DD Form 214, effective on that date, shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Purple Heart, the BSM, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the CIB.  He received on-the-job training as a supply specialist from 25 March 1970, until his return to the United States on 
12 October 1970.

On 29 March 1971, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) (116 days).  The sentence included a forfeiture of $100.00 and 60 days restriction.

On 30 March 1971, the applicant again went AWOL.  He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 17 May 1971.  He voluntarily returned to military control on 
2 September 1971, and subsequently charged with violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL (157 days).

On 3 September 1971, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged the possible effects of receiving an under other than honorable discharge, and elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he hated Army life and that he would repeat his AWOL if not discharged.  He asked for a general discharge based upon his tour of duty in the RVN and his awards, but would take any discharge to get out.

The applicant’s company commander recommended an UD, while the battalion and brigade level authorities recommended that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.

On 1 October 1971, the appropriate authority approved the requested separation, directing that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He was so discharged on 4 October 1971.  He completed 2 years, 2 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had 297 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 20 August 1981, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge.  He requested a personal appearance.  He contended that his discharge was inequitable and that he would present supporting documentation at the time of the hearing.  On 4 February 1982, he was notified that his request for a personal appearance was approved.  The ADRB convened on 30 March 1983; however, neither the applicant nor his legal counsel appeared.  The ADRB considered the quality of his service in the RVN, taking note of his awards.  It noted the length of his AWOL and his statement at the time of his discharge indicating that he would continue to go AWOL.  It looked for other factors which would mitigate his substandard character of service.  The ADRB unanimously voted not to change the reason for his discharge, and voted three to two against changing his characterization of service.

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.

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.

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

3.  While the applicant’s quality of service in the RVN is very commendable, it is not sufficient to overcome the seriousness of his repeated misconduct upon returning to the United States.

4.  The applicant’s contention that his misconduct was the result of his suffering from PTSD at the time, is not supported by any evidence of record.  He has not provided any evidence or mitigating argument to support his contention.

5.  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

__MKP   _  __TBR __  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057151	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711004	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHPT 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.