MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059594

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Regan K. Smith		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he can no longer support himself due to his mental and physical health and he is in need of medical care.  He further states that his doctor informed him that most of his health problems were service related.

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

On 27 September 1965, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years.  He was trained and served in military occupation specialty (MOS) 64A (Light Vehicle Driver).  Upon completing his training the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.  He arrived there on 20 November 1966 and after serving less than a month he departed on 
13 December 1966.

His record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  Further, the only awards he earned were for service, which included the Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device, and National Defense Service Medal.  

The applicant’s service record does reflect an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, his conviction by a special court-martial (SPCM) and his accrual of 3,369 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) and in military confinement.  

The applicant accepted NJP on 4 January 1966 for being absent from his appointed place of duty and again on 9 November 1966 for being AWOL from 
17 May to 12 October 1966.  On 9 December 1968, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 7 January to 4 November 1967.  On 10 March 1969, he again went AWOL and this time he remained away almost 8 years until returning to military control on 28 December 1976.  

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records and there are no available medical records that show the applicant suffered from any medically disabling condition at the time of his separation.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that confirms on 27 January 1977, he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  

At the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed a total of 9 months and 29 day of creditable active military service and he had accrued a total of 3,369 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

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

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 UOTHC 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 notes the applicant’s contention that he suffers from service related medical problems and requires an upgrade to his discharge in order to receive medical care.  However, the Board finds no evidence that confirms this claim and even if true this factor alone is no sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the Board notes the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his separation.  Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was administratively discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.

4.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Finally, the Board finds that the applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate based on his limited service, extensive disciplinary history, and undistinguished overall record of service.

5.  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.

6.  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__  ___RKS__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059594	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770127	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.