MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059207

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that upon his return from Vietnam he was an alcoholic, a condition for which he was never treated.  As a result of this lack of treatment, his alcoholism impaired his ability to serve.  In support of his application, he submits four letters of support and a copy of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214).

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

On 30 September 1970, he entered the Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training, advanced individual training, and was subsequently assigned to Vietnam.  

The applicant served in Vietnam from 1 April 1971 to 20 January 1972 and was reassigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  While assigned to Fort Stewart, he went absent without leave (AWOL) on the following three occasions: 13 April 1972 to 24 April 1972; 8 May 1972 to 11 May 1972; and 12 May 1972 to 20 June 1972.

On 22 June 1972, a court-martial charge was preferred against him for the three period of AWOL.  After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis of the contemplated court-martial, he voluntarily submitted a request to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 14 July 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  At the time, he had completed a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of creditable active service and had accrued 77 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 3 January 1974, the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge was denied by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  

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 court-martial charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 contention that his inability to serve in the Army was due to his being an alcoholic, a condition for which he was not treated, is not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. 

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

___CLA__  __CLG__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	ARAR2001059207	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	( UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720714	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For The Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 93.19.	71.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.