IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100030044 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for upgrade of his discharge to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states in a 3-page narrative, essentially that: a. upon arrival in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) he was excited, scared, and nervous; b. he replaced a radio operator who had been killed; c. his first sergeant was killed saving his life - the first sergeant exploded right in front of him; d. he caught malaria; e. he started using drugs right before leaving the RVN - his drug use got worse when he went to Germany; f. he got married and had a son in 1971; g. things then got crazy - family sickness and deaths - he just wanted to come home to his family; h. he had to stay in Germany - reenlisted for the money for his family; i. he was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas - soon after had death in family and he went home; j. he got caught up - got on drugs - was absent without leave (AWOL) - was caught and returned to Fort Hood; k. was told if he just wanted out without a court-martial - take a chapter 10, general discharge - get it upgraded within 6 to 12 months; l. had he been given the help Soldiers get today, he would have been alright; m. he now has many health problems - constant headaches, strokes, heart attacks; and n. he asks for help to be proud again by having his discharge upgraded. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR 20090016690 on 9 March 2010. 2. The applicant has provided new arguments that require Board consideration. 3. The original Record of Proceedings shows that the applicant contended that he was AWOL for only two weeks; however, the evidence of record shows he was AWOL from 27 September 1971 to 30 May 1974 (976 days). a. Five character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant failed to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. b. The applicant’s record of service during his last enlistment included two nonjudicial punishments and 976 days of lost time. Accordingly, his record of service was not satisfactory. It did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. c. The Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 4. 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. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 5. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 clearly inappropriate. 6. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that had he been given the help Soldiers receive today, he would have been alright. He also contends that he was told his discharge would be upgraded within 6 to 12 months from discharge. 2. There is no conclusive evidence of record showing that he requested help concerning either his family problems or his use of drugs. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Army denied him the help he needed. He chose drugs and AWOL as his solution and subsequently requested an administrative discharge to avoid a court-martial sentence. 3. There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service. 4. The applicant's implied desire to obtain veterans medical benefits is not justification for an upgrade of his discharge. 5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X___ ___X____ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR 20090016690 on 9 March 2010. _________X_________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100030044 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100030044 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1