MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058221

	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:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served two years in Vietnam during the periods 1967 to 1968 and 1969 to 1970 and that he would like his “under honorable” discharge be changed to an honorable discharge.  

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

He entered active duty on 26 August 1966 for a period of three years.  He completed on the job training as a supply handler and served in Vietnam from 12 May 1967 through 9 May 1968.  He was honorably discharged on 2 September 1968 for immediate reenlistment and completed another tour in Vietnam from 21 April 1969 through 6 April 1970.  He was promoted to specialist five in September 1969 and awarded the Good Conduct Medal and the Army Commendation Medal during his second enlistment.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 December 1969 to 3 January 1970.

On various dates between January 1971 and January 1972, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments for being disrespectful in language towards a sergeant; for wrongfully using provoking words towards a specialist four; for dishonorably failing to pay a debt; for being AWOL for one day; 
and for making and uttering a total of eight worthless checks to the Fort Knox Noncommissioned Officer Open Mess and to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service.

The applicant’s personnel records contain an undated Report of Mental Status Evaluation.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any administrative action.

On 10 February 1972, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, due to his unsuitable character.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 February 1972, the separation authority waived rehabilitation, waived the applicant’s request for a hearing before a board of officers, and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 February 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability.  On his current enlistment, he had 3 years, 5 months and 10 days of creditable service with 13 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He had a total of 5 years, 5 months, and 17 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 contention that he served two years in Vietnam.  

2.  Records show the applicant was AWOL for twelve days and received four nonjudicial punishments after he returned from Vietnam.  The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all 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

CLA_____  DPH_____  CLG_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058221	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720223	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.