MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068893

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged.  

APPLICANT STATES: That on 28 February 1974, he received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate that was upgraded to General under honorable conditions on 6 July 1979.  He indicates he was an excellent soldier and that he gave 110 percent to the Army, until the unit first sergeant told him to go home and await a medical discharge.  He was apprehended as being absent without leave (AWOL) and discharged as being undesirable.  He gives a brief description of his active duty assignments.  He concludes by indicating his discharge should have been medical, and that “all this has led to PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) treatment and 27 years of feeling that I have let my country down.”  He contends that the Department of Veterans Affairs has determined him to be 40 percent disabled based on a parachute accident in 1972; however, he has not provided evidence in support of his claim.

He provided a partial copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record); a copy of his revised DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 28 February 1974; 2 pages from his prior request for upgrade of his discharge; a letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, Training and Doctrine Command thanking him for his suggestions for Prisoner of War training; and a poem entitled “Patriotism.”

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

On 26 March 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Army.  On 9 July 1969, he was honorably discharged for not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated      9 July 1969 indicates he had 3 months and 14 days of creditable service.  

On 30 September 1971, he enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator).

Although copies of his non-judicial punishments (NJP) are not in the available records, the record does show he was formally counseled on 7 occasions and that he received NJP on at least 7 occasions for AWOL, dereliction in the performance of his duty, and falsifying official military records.

On 6 June 1973, his commander recommended he be barred from reenlistment based on his NJP’s and his letters of indebtedness.  He also indicated that the applicant demonstrated a total disregard for his military and moral responsibilities.  He had a record of misconduct and indebtedness that was indicative of his apathetic attitude in relation to his performance of duties and 

personal affairs.  His attitude has regressed even though he had numerous chances to rehabilitate himself.  The applicant elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 July 1973, the appropriate approval authority approved the bar to reenlistment.

The applicant was recommended for separation for shirking, and failure to pay just debts.  He received a rehabilitative transfer.  The commander rated him unsatisfactory for the period 1 October 1972 to January 1974.  The applicant waived all rights.  There is no evidence in the records that he received a mental evaluation.

On 28 February 1974, he was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(4) with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  His DD Form 214 shows completion of 2 years, 4 months and 11 days of creditable service and 122 days of lost time.  He received an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has provided none, showing that the unit first sergeant advised him to go home and that a medical discharge would be mailed to him.

On 29 October 1975, he was denied disability compensation by the Veterans Administration and was advised that he could only qualify if the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed his discharge to under honorable conditions.

On 13 June 1979, in adjudicating his request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable, the ADRB determined that his discharge was not proper or equitable and gave partial relief by upgrading his discharge to General under honorable conditions and assigning special processing designator “JKJ” (Misconduct – an established pattern for shirking).  

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He has not shown otherwise, or that he should have been medically discharged.  He has not provided evidence in support of his contentions.

2.  There is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the unit first sergeant advised him to go home and that a medical discharge would be mailed to him.  

3.  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 the preceding requirement.

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

_SK_____  _RVO___  _JPI____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068893	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	144	
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.