MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064014

	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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that due to his prior honorable service he is requesting a GD.  He served the 6 months tours in Vietnam, prior to going absent without leave (AWOL) due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  He is still having flash backs and has trouble associating with people.

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

The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 May 1968.
He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B4P (Field Artillery Crewman).  On 27 January 1969, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 28 January 1969 for 
3 years.  His services were continuous through reenlistments.  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

The applicant arrived in the RVN on or about 5 June 1969.  He was assigned to 
Battery C, 3rd Battalion, 319th Artillery, 173rd Airborne Brigade, Vietnam.

On 22 August 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for dereliction of duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $40.00 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 1 month).

The applicant departed the RVN on or about 27 November 1970.  On 25 March 1971, the applicant was reported for being AWOL from the United States Army Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, California.  He was dropped from the rolls on 28 April 1971.

On 18 March 1976, the applicant was apprehended by Federal authorities and confined to Franklin County Jail in Russellville, Alabama.  On 22 March 1976, the applicant was released and placed in military control at Fort McClellan, Alabama. On 24 March 1976, the applicant was transferred to the United States Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

On 24 March 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 March 1971 to 18 March 1976.

On 26 March 1976, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated, in effect, that he wanted out of the Army.  His family would suffer financially if he did not get out.  His bills total over $300.00 each month and he has a mortgage and car payments to make.  He felt if he stayed in the service he would lose everything.

On 31 March 1976, a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 15 April 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 19 May 1976, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He completed 
3 years and 14 days of creditable active service and had 1824 days of lost time.

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 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.  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.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that indicated he was suffering from PTSD.  Nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his allegation of PTSD.  In fact the statement that the applicant submitted in his own behalf, stated that his reason for going AWOL was due to financial obligations to his family.

3.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jns___  __lds___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064014	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020321	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760519	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.