MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002073872

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 honorable conditions be changed to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a troubled childhood and was pressured to join the Army by the recruiter who lied to him about getting his high school diploma and trained as a heavy equipment operator.  He was told that if he went "AWOL" (absent without leave) he would be sent to Vietnam, which is where he wanted to go.  He was sent to Vietnam after he returned from being AWOL and was later wounded in both legs.  He was in the hospital for several weeks of treatment and then returned to his unit.  After being in the field and combat again his leg began to bleed and he mentally broke down.  His unit could see that he could no longer perform and he was sent home for 2 weeks of rest.  

He was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington and continued to use a crutch or a cane.  This upset the unit commander because of the shape he was in.  They tried to send him back to Vietnam and he went AWOL in May 1971.  He received medical treatment from civilian doctors and he returned to the military in December 1971.  He was placed in confinement and they tried to give him a dishonorable discharge.  The commanding general decided to give him a general discharge because he was a decorated veteran.

He now has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and only works at odd jobs. He has a good family and is involved in his church.  An upgraded discharge will help in his healing and show that his service was not wasted.  He served his country with pride.  He submits two character reference letters in support of his application.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 28 November 1969.  He was trained as an armor reconnaissance specialist.  The applicant was assigned to Germany but failed to report for overseas movement.  He was AWOL from 5 May to 23 June 1970.  He was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the AWOL offense.  The applicant states that he went AWOL because he did not want to go to Germany; he wanted to go to Vietnam.  He was punished again under Article 15, UCMJ, on 5 August 1970 for absence from his place of duty.  The applicant states that all that happened was that he missed "bed check."

The applicant was assigned to Vietnam from 20 September 1970 through 18 April 1971.  His records indicate that he was awarded the Purple Heart on an unknown date in 1970.  There are no medical records available for review and there is no assignment history that shows he was a patient in a hospital.

On 15 April 1971, the applicant requested leave for compassionate reasons.  He had not heard from his wife for 3 months and he was told that she was going out with other men.  He received approval for 15 days leave ending on 1 May 1971.  Effective 28 June 1971, he was dropped from the rolls of the Army as a deserter. He was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control effective 3 December 1971.  On 10 December 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL.  The applicant states that he was AWOL because he could not go back to Vietnam based on his physical and mental state.

On 9 December 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request, he acknowledged the rights available to him and the consequences of the type of discharge he might receive.  His chain of command recommended separation with a general discharge based on his Vietnam service and awards.

The separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed separation with a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was also allowed to keep his pay grade of E-3.  Effective 23 December 1971, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days creditable service and 241 days lost time.

His wife and a friend of the family provide statements in support of his request.  The wife states that the family has endured many hardships because of his PTSD and inability to get fulltime work.  She believes that an upgrade of his discharge will help in the healing process.  Her husband served proudly, was highly decorated, and should receive an honorable discharge.

A friend of the family writes that the applicant is always ready to help others and is a kind person.  He is active in the church and believes that he served his country with honor.  He believes the applicant would benefit greatly if given an honorable discharge.

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; based on the soldier's overall record of service, a discharge under honorable conditions may be granted.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied for a discharge upgrade to the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant's chain of command considered his Vietnam service and awards in determining the appropriateness of the type of discharge he would receive.  The Board notes the applicant's punishments under the UCMJ and his extensive periods of AWOL.  The Board concludes that the applicant's characterization of service is consistent with Army standards for soldiers whose service is less than fully honorable.

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

__mm___  __jm____  ___ea___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073872	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711223	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.