MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067886

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had honorable prior service and he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  In support of his application, he provides a handwritten statement outlining his prior service and his awards and decorations; numerous training certificates from General Motors Corporation; a real estate training certificate; a certificate of appreciation from the City of Detroit (Michigan) for the "Knowledgeable Neighbor" program; a certificate of completion for the Dale Carnegie Course; a US Air Force certificate of training; a diploma from "Christ's Ambassadors" program of the Churches of Christ; a document appointing the applicant as a Notary Public in the State of Michigan; a certificate of recognition from the Dale Carnegie Course; a certificate of appreciation from the Detroit Recorder's Court; a certificate of accomplishment from H&R Block for basic income tax preparation; a certificate of completion of the slow pitch softball umpire camp; a letter of appreciation from the Mayor of Detroit for "Clean Sweep Day;" a letter of appreciation from the Mayor of Detroit for "Angel's Night;" a membership certificate in The American Legion."

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

With honorable prior service from 6 September 1967 through 16 April 1970, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 17 April 1970.  At the time of his reenlistment, he was a Specialist Four (E-4), serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman.

On 4 March 1971, the applicant reported for his second tour of duty in Vietnam.  He was assigned to A Troop, 7th Squadron, 17th Cavalry, as an infantryman.  On 22 September 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL), being in an off-limits area, not having a proper pass, violating currency regulation by possessing US dollars, possession of heroin, and sale of heroin.  He was placed in military pre-trial confinement.

On 7 November 1971, having been properly advised by legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  His chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request and issuance of a UD.  On 26 January 1972, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be separated with a UD.

On 16 February 1972, the applicant was separated with a UD under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 1 year and 10 months of creditable service during the period under review and no lost time.  He had total service of 4 years, 5 months, and 11 days of creditable service.

The applicant received three discharge reviews from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 13 May 1977, his records were reviewed under the Special Discharge Review Program; on 21 May 1979, they were reviewed under the aegis of uniform standards; and on 8 May 1980, they were reviewed based upon his application to that board.  The ADRB, in each case, found that the applicant had been properly discharged and denied an upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge might submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may have been submitted at any time after charges were preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Army policy stated that although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UD was 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 committed serious offenses involving the possession and sale of heroin during his second tour of duty in Vietnam.  After court-martial charges were preferred against him, the applicant, after consulting with defense counsel, voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The Board also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service, as well as his many post-service accomplishments.  In so doing, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

4.  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

__fne___  __bje___  __wdb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067886	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020910	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720216	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A74.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.