MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           17 June 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086192

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that some of his service was honorable.  He claims that he has had a stroke and he needs to get into the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System.   

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

He initially entered the Regular Army on 16 October 1970.  He was successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lewis, Washington.  Upon completing of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

The applicant served in Europe until December 1971, at which time he was reassigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  On 15 October 1972, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 16 October 1972, he reenlisted for six years.  

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he was promoted to specialist four (SP4) on 7 May 1971, and this was the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  He was reduced to private first class (PFC) on 1 May 1972, and again promoted to SP4 on 15 October 1972.  On 
26 March 1974, he was reduced to private/E-1 (PV1), which is the rank he held at the time of his separation.  

Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that during his tenure on active duty he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 
60 Device.  The record documents no significant acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  However, the record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes 28 April 1972 special court-martial conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon.  

On 9 October 1973, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand from his unit commander for being dismissed from the Noncommissioned Officers Academy for disciplinary reasons.  

On 25 October 1973, a DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions) was completed on the applicant.  This document confirms that the applicant attempted to wrongfully obtain services from an Army Medical Center on 27 September 1973.  
A TAMC Form 108 (Request for Mental Health Consultation) on file shows that the applicant’s unit commander requested the applicant be seen in connection with his separation processing under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.  This document indicates that the applicant’s actions were unbecoming a soldier and he could not be depended upon to accomplish any mission.  The unit commander also indicated that the applicant had been counseled on his duty performance and personal problems on many occasions, but to no avail.  

On 6 April 1974, the applicant received an UD after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 21 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 3 years, 5 months, and 
21 days of active military service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him on the date of his separation confirms he held the rank of PV1 and he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness.  The applicant signed this document in Item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby confirming that the information contained in the separation document was correct at the time it was prepared. 

The record gives no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.  

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of members for unfitness for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature and shirking.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he had good service and that he is now in need of VA medical care.  However, the Board finds his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to his discharge, and while his medical condition is regrettable, it alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted separation document that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his discharge.  This document contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes government regularity in the applicant’s separation processing.  

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time. 

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

__FE__  __HOF___  __MT __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086192	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/04/06	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.