MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 April 2002   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067922

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.    

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded to receive medical care from the Veterans Administration (VA).  In support of his application, he submits a letter, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), dated 27 December 2001; an undated page of a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States); a letter of explanation, dated 4 September 2001; and four letters of support from friends.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The VFW, as counsel for the applicant, was notified of the applicant pending review by the Board; however, no brief was submitted. 

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

The applicant enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard on 22 June 1961 for a period of 3 years.  He was ordered to active duty on 8 August 1961 for six months of training.  He was released from active duty training on 14 October 1961 and ordered to enter 12 months of active duty.  The applicant enlisted on 15 October 1961 for a period of 1 year.  He was honorably released from active duty on 11 August 1962 and returned to the Kentucky Army National Guard to complete his remaining obligation.  He entered active duty on 12 February 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He served as an armor crewman in Germany and was honorably discharged on 2 December 1966.  He reenlisted on 3 December 1966 for a period of 6 years.  The applicant served as a gunner in Vietnam from 
13 February 1967 through 10 February 1968. 

On 14 August 1969, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant.  The unit commander cited that the applicant was a substandard soldier with conduct and efficiency ratings of “Fair” and that the applicant had failed on numerous occasions to pay his just and legal debts.   
 
On 2 October 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 August 1969 to 9 September 1969.  He was sentenced to forfeit $200, to perform extra duties for 2 hours per day for 15 days, to be reduced to corporal, to be reprimanded and to be restricted for 
30 days.  On 4 November 1969, the convening authority approved the sentence but excepted the word “Corporal” and substituted it with “Specialist Four” and suspended the forfeiture of pay for 3 months.  The unexecuted portion of the sentence to restriction for 30 days was remitted effective 28 November 1969. 

On 26 January 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to private first class.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 July 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 8 years, 9 months and 5 days of total active service with 57 days lost.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Form) shows his lost time was due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no indication in the available records which shows 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. 

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 noted the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to honorable to allow him entitlement to VA benefits for medical care.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation  appear to be appropriate.

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

AAO____  RWA_____  KYF_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067922	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020404	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700708	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.