MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           18 October 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057408

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had just returned from Vietnam; that his brother was getting married and he wanted to attend, so he reported to his unit 1 week late (absent without leave, or AWOL) and was reprimanded for his mistake.  The second time he left his unit AWOL was because the company commander embarrassed him in front of the whole company by stating he was not fit to wear the medals (Purple Heart and Bronze Star) he had earned in Vietnam because he had gone AWOL.  The applicant acknowledges he made mistakes; however, he believes that the company commander also made mistakes and should have been reprimanded for his actions.  The applicant also believes he did everything in his power to serve his country and that he would do it over again if necessary.  He concludes his statement by asking for the honorable discharge that he believes he deserves after 30 years of torture.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 28 November 1969 for a period of 3 years.  Following completion of all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman and was assigned to Germany.  

On 28 July 1970, the applicant was discharged for the purpose of immediately reenlisting in the RA on 29 July 1970 for a period of 3 years and for an overseas assignment to the Republic of Vietnam.  

On 5 October 1970, at Fort Lewis, Washington, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 27 September until 5 October 1970.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 2 months.

On 6 October 1970, the applicant departed enroute to Vietnam.  He served in Vietnam from 17 October 1970 to 10 October 1971.  On 10 October 1971, he was reassigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.

On 5 January 1972, at Fort Carson, the applicant accepted an NJP for being AWOL from his unit from 15 November 1971 until 2 January 1972.  His punishment consisted of reduction in rank to private first class/E-3 (suspended until 6 March 1972) and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 2 months.

On 5 July 1972, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until 1 November 1972, when he surrendered to civil authorities.  On 10 November 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for this period of AWOL.

On 14 November 1972, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he stated he was requesting discharge due to family problems.  He further stated that he thought it was in his best interest as well as the Army’s that he be discharged.

The company commander recommended approval of the chapter 10 request with a GD.  On 1 December 1972, the intermediate commander recommended disapproval of the chapter 10 request.

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a GD.  Accordingly, on 15 December 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years and 12 days of creditable military service; a total time in service of 2 years, 8 months, and 13 days, and accruing 128 days of lost time.  He was credited with the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and two Overseas Service Bars.

AR 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  At the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation normally provided for the issuance of a UD.

There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 applicant’s administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board noted that normally soldiers being discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 receive an undesirable discharge; however, the applicant’s characterization of service was established as general, under honorable conditions.  The Board believes that the applicant's overall service record was considered when he was discharged from the Army with a GD instead of an Undesirable Discharge.

4.  Although the applicant had family problems, the Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct that led to his discharge from the Army.

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

__fne ___  __mhm __  __bje ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057408	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011018	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9201	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.