MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            30 August 2001  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057623

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his problems started after his hospitalization in 1969 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and the orthopedics due to his injuries in Vietnam and mental state.  He contends that he was immature, was not afforded “psychiatric counsel”, and was not professionally represented during the Discharge Review Board proceedings.  In conclusion, he believes that he was inadequately represented. 

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

He enlisted in the Army on 8 December 1967 for a period of three years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and served as a rifleman in Vietnam from 21 May 1968 through 14 April 1969.

After his return to the continental United States, the applicant received seven nonjudicial punishments on various occasions between 15 October 1968 and 17 January 1970 for signing a false official statement and for being absent without leave (AWOL).

On 10 September 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 8 May 1970 to 26 July 1970.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $35.00 pay per month for 6 months and to be restricted to the limits of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for 2 months.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 April 1973 for being AWOL from 23 December 1970 to 30 March 1973.

On 17 April 1973, the applicant consulted with legal 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 offenses 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 UOTHC discharge were issued.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement, the applicant stated that his legs were injured while he was in Vietnam.  He also stated that he, “just couldn’t take anymore,” and that he did not want to stay in the Army.  The applicant underwent a separation medical on 19 April 1973 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

On 10 May 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 17 May 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 2 years, 3 months and 13 days of creditable service and 1,169 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 9 March 1979 and 13 August 1984, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  The Board, by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request on both occasions.

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 Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding his injuries sustained in Vietnam, his mental state, his immaturity, and his inadequate representation by “psychiatric counsel”.  

2.  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. 

3.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

4.  There was no indication of procedural errors in the chapter 10 discharge process which would tend to jeopardize the applicant’s rights.

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

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  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.

8.  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

RVO____  CJP_____  LDS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057623	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010830	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730517	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun 	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.