MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            9 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068107

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 a general or fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was given after his tour of duty in Vietnam.  The discharge was given traumatized 19-year-old man.  He also states that his evidence is the recorded behavior pattern of a veteran after a tour overseas, to include Article 15s and the like.  He wants to right a wrong done to a veteran for over 25 years.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army with a waiver of an unlawful offense, as a private, pay grade E-1, on 23 January 1967.

On 8 June 1967, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for misconduct.  He was punished with forfeiture of pay.

On 9 June 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for misconduct.  He was punished with forfeiture of pay.

He attained the rank of pay grade E-3 on 3 August 1967.

He served overseas in Hawaii from 4 September to 5 December 1967.

On 19 October 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for willfully disobeying an order and absence from his place of duty.  His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, extra duty and restriction.

He served overseas in Vietnam from 6 December 1967 to 5 December 1968.

On 16 March and 13 July 1968, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for willfully disobeying a non-commissioned officer.  His punishment included reduction to pay grades E-2 and E-1, forfeiture and restriction.

On 16 May 1969, he was charged before a Special Court-Martial of one specification of wrongful communication of a threat to injure and one specification of violation of a lawful general regulation by having in his possession live ammunition.  He was found guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of pay, and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 13 September 1969, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from formation and absence from work call.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay and restriction.

He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 21 October 1969.  On 18 November 1969, he was dropped from the rolls.

On 5 June 1971, he was returned to the United States Army Personnel Control Facility.

He was discharged on 4 August 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, SPN 246, for the good of the service, and issued a UD discharge certificate.  He was credited with 2 years, 11 months and 14 days net active service and lost time from 20 October 1969 to 22 January 1970, 4 February 1970 to 21 March 1971 and 5 April to 4 June 1971.

The discharge proceedings are not a part of his records.

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 a UD.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions, or to fully honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  The Board notes his contentions that his discharge was given after his tour in Vietnam and the evidence of record shows a behavior pattern after his return from overseas.  However, it does not sufficiently support his request.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment before and after his overseas tours.  He was punished under Article 15 twice for misconduct before his first overseas tour of duty.  He was also punished three times before his departure to Vietnam.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s contentions have not been substantiated and does not serve as mitigation in his case. 

3.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

_jhl____  __tlp___  _jns____        DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068107	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020509	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.