RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            09 MARCH 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091469

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge from the Army under other than honorable conditions on 10 December 1971 be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states that he regrets his behavior while in the Army.  He was young and immature; however, that alone is no excuse.  He had difficulties in his family.  He was raised with little guidance and discipline.  Prior to his enlistment in the Army he was involved in a near fatal car accident, suffering broken bones and scars to his face and knees.  While in the Army he underwent cosmetic surgery to make his scars look better.  He had no self-esteem and tried to get attention by acting like a fool.  He experimented with every drug imaginable.  When he went to Vietnam, he got involved in the drug culture, smoked pot and opium, and within 2 weeks of his arrival was doing heroin.  He has a 12-year-old daughter, is a responsible father, and has always worked steady.  He has not taken drugs for 23 years.  He feels like he is serving a life sentence for his mistakes.  He has not told his daughter of his discharge.  He is too ashamed.  His father, grandfather, and brother are veterans.  He is an honest and law abiding citizen who went through a tough time. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 31 March 2003 letter supporting the applicant's request from a Veterans' Services Officer who grew up with the applicant.  He provides a copy of his DD Forms 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), and copies of his medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 26 October 1970, trained as an automotive repair parts specialist, and in May 1971 was assigned to a maintenance battalion in Germany.  On 26 June 1971 the applicant reenlisted for three years for assignment to Vietnam.  He departed Germany en route to Vietnam in July 1971.    

2.  On 7 September 1971, while assigned to the Overseas Replacement Station at Fort Lewis, Washington, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for AWOL (absent without leave) from   1 September 1971 through 5 September 1971.  

3.  On 14 September 1971 the applicant was assigned to an artillery battalion in Vietnam.  In a 25 October 1971 statement a noncommissioned officer stated that he gave the applicant a lawful order to report to his place of duty, and the applicant refused to report for duty with the words, "I am not going to work."  The applicant's battery commander, on that same date, ordered the applicant to report to his place of duty, and the applicant again refused to obey.  That officer stated that the previous day the applicant informed him that he intended to refuse to go to work.  After informing the applicant to reconsider and telling him that if he did refuse to go to work he would take disciplinary action against him, that officer stated that the applicant said that he would still refuse to go to work. 

4.  On 26 October 1971 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  Orders were published on 11 November 1971 referring the applicant for trial by special court-martial.

5.  On 15 November 1971 the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He stated that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  The applicant's battery commander recommended approval on the applicant's request, indicating that he be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He stated that the applicant demonstrated an inability to adjust to military life and had received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on two occasions.  

6.  A 17 November 1971 statement by that same officer indicated that the applicant had volunteered to enter the drug amnesty program on or about           7 October 1971, although no actual evidence of drugs were found.  He stated that the applicant would not do any work for a period of approximately 4 days and that the applicant indicated that he would go to any lengths to obtain a discharge. The applicant's first sergeant stated that the applicant's conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory, that he had repeatedly missed work call formations, had refused to go to work on two occasions, and had repeatedly stated that he wanted out of the Army.  

7.  On 1 December 1971 the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 10 December 1971.  

8.  The applicant's medical records are significant.  They show that prior to his enlistment in 1970 he did have facial and knee scars stemming from an automobile accident, and that he did undergo an operation for revision of a scar to his right chin and left cheek in April 1971.  A 7 October 1971 medical record shows that he had been in Vietnam for five weeks and had a two week history of heroin use, 2 vials a day, and wanted amnesty.  An 8 October 1971 notation in his medical records indicated that the applicant stated that he wanted out of the Army at all costs, and that he admitted using drugs was probably the easiest way out.  

•	A 23 October 1971 medical record shows that he was referred to a psychiatrist because of his immature personality and mild drug dependence.  The psychiatrist indicated that there was no reason for the referral as the applicant readily acknowledged his overt intention to use any means necessary to escape his military commitment.  He stated that the applicant resumed heroin use and demonstrated poor judgment and impulse control.  He stated that the applicant felt that an undesirable discharge would be no hindrance as he intended to work for his father as a machinist.  The psychiatrist recommended that he be retuned to his unit for any action deemed necessary.

•	An undated statement, apparently composed when the applicant was in Vietnam, indicated that the applicant's home life was broken, that he started drinking when he was 12 years old, and that during advanced training [in the Army] he started on marijuana.  That statement indicated that the applicant "got into" sniffing lighter fluid, and after being assigned to Germany started smoking hash.  He was turned on to LSD, but had a flashback and stopped using the drug.  After arrival in Vietnam he "turned on" to grass.  It indicated that as much as he did not want heroin, he began frequent use, up to two vials a day.  The statement indicated that the applicant volunteered for the amnesty program to keep from using heroin and that he no longer desired drugs.

•	A 5 December 1971 report of medical examination indicated that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge, that he had well healed lacerations to his face and right knee, and that he had a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  The report of medical history furnished for the examination, indicated that the applicant had frequent nightmares since basic combat training, was depressed since entering the Army, and that he had an immature personality.  That report indicated that he used heroin in Vietnam and had experimented [with drugs] in the United States.  It indicated that a urine test was negative for opiate derivatives.
 
9.  On 28 January 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous decision, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. 

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that an individual whose conduct has rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable 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.  An undesirable discharge certificate will normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the service.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly indicates that the applicant did all that he could to be discharged from the Army, that he was not concerned with the type of discharge that he would receive, nor any consequences that would derive from a less than honorable discharge.  He wanted out of the Army.  Subsequent to court-martial charges against him, he chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is noted, as is his expressions of regret for his actions while in the Army.  Nevertheless, none of these factors or his good post service conduct, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__SAC __  __SLP __  __BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		___Samuel A. Crumpler_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091469	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040309	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.