MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072297

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that after serving his first tour in Vietnam, he reenlisted and returned to Vietnam with the hope of returning to his previous job as a Military Affiliated Radio System (MARS) operator.  However, when he returned to Vietnam, he met a noncommissioned officer (NCO) who informed him that such was not the case and later in the evening, the NCO broke into his quarters and assaulted him.  In order to keep him (the applicant) from pressing charges, the commander transferred him from Cam Ranh Bay to another duty station as a MARS operator.  He continues by stating that he had later learned that Cam Ranh Bay had been overrun by the Viet Cong and went into shock.  He awoke in a hospital in Saigon on tranquilizers with no memory of what had occurred.  When he was released, he was assigned to work in his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a radio operator, something he had not done since his advanced individual training (AIT) and was assigned to work inside a van on a remote hillside.  He goes on to state that his nerves fell apart and he decided that his only means of escape was to use drugs.  He was sent to a detoxification center and eventually was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he was branded as a drug user and was eventually discharged.  He contends that his two tours in Vietnam and the awards he received are sufficient to justify an upgrade of his discharge and states that he desires to procure employment with the Postal Service, which requires an upgrade of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in Raleigh, North Carolina, on 6 October 1969, for a period of 3 years and training as a radio relay and carrier attendant.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia to attend his advanced individual training (AIT).  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Vietnam on 17 May 1970.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 26 November 1970.

He departed Vietnam on 16 May 1971 and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a radio relay and carrier attendant.

On 26 October 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to have his hair cut to standards, for appearing at guard mount in a disarrayed uniform and lacking knowledge of his general orders and for failure to go to his place of duty at the prescribed time (guard mount).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 3 months), extra duty and restriction.

On 9 December 1971, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 10 December 1971, for a period of 5 years and a variable reenlistment bonus (VRB).

On 29 January 1972, he was transferred back to Vietnam and his records show that from February to June 1972, he served in three different units.   

On 12 October 1972, his commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had volunteered for the Drug Exemption Program and was being admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Center.  He indicated that the applicant had admitted that he had established a trend towards drug usage and that all attempts to counsel him had met with negative results.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 19 October 1972.  He departed Vietnam on 6 November 1972 and was transferred to Fort Bragg.

On 20 February 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.  The suspended portion of his punishment was vacated on 26 April 1973.

On 7 May 1973, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order, leaving his appointed place of duty and failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.  The suspended portion of his punishment was vacated on 14 September 1973.

Although not explained in the available records, the applicant’s commander at Fort Bragg also initiated a bar to reenlistment against him on 18 September 1973.  He cited the applicant’s poor performance, failure to respond to counseling and his disciplinary record as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the bar was again approved on 12 October 1973. 

Meanwhile, on 4 October 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 August to 9 September 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, correctional custody for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.

On 6 November 1973, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and the examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having an immature personality and opined that he should be administratively separated from the service for unsuitability because a rehabilitative transfer would prove to be disruptive to any unit he was assigned to.
He also underwent a mental status evaluation on 3 December 1973.  The examining official opined that the applicant had no significant mental illness, that he was mentally responsible, able to determine right from wrong and to adhere to the right. 

On 29 November 1973, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s diagnosis of having an immature personality, and indicated that the applicant’s conduct and performance had fell to the lowest level of accepted military standards because of his involvement with drugs.  He had used drugs and had been counseled by his chain of command, yet he had failed to submit to his drug problem with “Operation Awareness”, “Mental Hygiene” and “Quarter Ward.” 

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that he should receive an honorable discharge.  He contended that he reenlisted in the Army to receive a bonus that he could use to help his parents financially and that while on his second tour in Vietnam, he began to use drugs because they were abundant in Vietnam and if you didn’t use drugs you were deemed to be a “Red Neck”.  If you used alcohol you were deemed a “lifer”.  He further stated that he volunteered for the amnesty program in Vietnam and upon his arrival at Fort Bragg, he was branded as a drug user and treated accordingly.  He went on to state that he had a drug problem and knew he needed help, but the availability of drugs in Fayetteville, North Carolina only aggravated the problem.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 2 January 1974 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 January 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability.  He had served 4 years and 6 months of total active service and had 13 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His awards included the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unsuitable for various reasons that included apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, inability to expend effort constructively, inaptitude, personality disorder or homosexuality.  An honorable or general discharge was required as warranted by the individual’s military record of service.

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 discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of any procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case.

2.  The applicant demonstrated in his first enlistment that he could serve successfully as a soldier; however, during his second enlistment and during his second tour in Vietnam, his involvement with drugs led to his being deemed unsuitable for further military service.  While the Board recognizes that he did serve two tours in Vietnam, his record of service during his second tour and his conduct after returning from Vietnam does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to upgrade his discharge.

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 this 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

___md___  ___jhl___  ___reb __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072297	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/01/09	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUIT	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  547	144.4000/A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.