MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066622

	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. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it was an honor for him to serve his "Country", and he knows that he "served well."  He states that he enlisted in the Army and spent two terms in Vietnam.  He claims that he did not deny his responsibility when this "Country" needed him and he now needs his "Country" to erase this undesirable discharge from his records.  He also claims that his actions after he came back from Vietnam were from fatigue and seeing too much war.  He has an opportunity for a very good job in law enforcement, but because of his undesirable discharge, he has been denied a permit to carry a handgun.  He contends that his undesirable discharge continues to ruin his efforts for advancement and that his time served in Vietnam should count for something.  

In support of his application, the applicant submits a supplemental letter; two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) with an insert sheet; discharge orders; and three Records of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ.

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

The applicant was inducted in the Army on 15 September 1967.

While in basic training, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the applicant for being AWOL from 21 October 1967 to 2 November 1967.  

Upon successful completion of advanced individual training, he was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a field artillery crewman on 24 February 1968.  While in Vietnam, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years.  The applicant's tour in Vietnam ended on 24 January 1970.

After returning to the continental United States, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being AWOL from 28 February 1970 to 6 March 1970.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 18 January 1971 of being AWOL from 17 September 1970 to 6 November 1970.  He was restricted to the company area for 60 days, forfeiture of $166.00 pay for 1 month and reduction to the rank of corporal.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the applicant again on 29 June 1971 for being AWOL from 8 May 1971 to 15 June 1971.

Item 44 (Time Lost) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows he was AWOL from 13 July 1971 to 6 December 1971.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not present in his records.  However, his DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged on 20 January 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial and was issued an undesirable discharge.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed 3 years, 8 months, and 16 days total active military service with 230 days of lost time. 

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

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 that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's contentions that he "served well" and "spent two terms in Vietnam."  However, his records show he received three nonjudicial punishments, a summary court-martial, and was AWOL for a total of 230 days.  In view of the seriousness of his offenses, the Board determined that the applicant's service in Vietnam did not warrant upgrading his discharge to honorable.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of this case.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust or in error.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting an upgrade in this case.

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

JL______  GDP_____  CG______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066622	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020425	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720120	
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.