MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030204

	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	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 essence that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) (sic undesirable discharge (UD)) or general discharge (GD), be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when he returned from overseas, he just couldn’t adjust to stateside duty.  He further states that he still cannot adjust to stateside duty.  He adds that he has been a good citizen.  He submits a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his request. 

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

On 21 April 1967, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his basic training and was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, for advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was then assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), on 
25 August 1967.  He served satisfactorily, was advanced to pay grade E-3 and he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross w/Palm, the Vietnam Service Medal w/1 bronze service star, the Vietnam Campaign Medal w/ 60 Device, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

On 16 September 1968, he returned to the Continental United States and was assigned to duty as a military policeman, at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

His records show that he had several periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 January to 2 June 1969, from 10 June to 20 August 1969 and from 23 August 1969 to 25 March 1970.  His last return to military control was at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On 30 March 1970, his command referred him for a psychiatric evaluation.  On 
2 April 1970, the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division at Fort Leonard Wood, diagnosed the applicant as having a passive-aggressive personality disorder, severe.  However, there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  Therefore, the individual was cleared for any administrative decision deemed appropriate by his command.

On 6 April 1970, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was going to recommend separation under the provision of AR 635-212, for unfitness.  
The commander cited the applicant’s repeated and lengthy periods of AWOL, resistance to authority and regulations, and a pattern of behavior which rendered him a complete loss to the service.  

Most of the remaining documents in the discharge packet are undated.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He waived a hearing by a board of officers, representation by legal counsel, and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 27 April 1970, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 with a UD.  On the same date he went AWOL and was returned to military control on 3 May 1970.

On 6 May 1970, the applicant was separated.  He had completed 1 year, 
9 months and 30 days of active military service and had 442 days lost time due to being AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.

On 17 August 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s UD to a GD, under honorable conditions, but did not change the reason for the discharge.  The rationale for the upgrade action is not further explained in the file.  

On 4 April 1977, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 
4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program entitled the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, education level, low aptitude scores, and/or a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge would also be considered upon application by the individual.

On 13 December 1977, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under the SDRP criteria.  That board declined to further upgrade the applicant’s discharge from a GD in that it found that the upgrade action of 17 August l976 was sufficient. Therefore, the ADRB voted not to further upgrade the applicant’s GD issued in connection with his discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness.
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.  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

2.  The applicant’s discharge was upgraded from a UD to a GD by the ADRB in August 1976, under the standards then in effect.  However, the GD was not further upgraded when it was reviewed under the SDRP in December 1977.  

3.  This Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB in not further upgrading the applicant’s general discharge.  There is no indication of procedural errors in the original discharge action nor by the ADRB in its review actions which would tend to have jeopardized the applicant's rights.

4.  The applicant’s record of unauthorized absences in excess of 400 days clearly shows that his record of service was not sufficient to warrant a fully honorable discharge.

5.  This Board is not convinced that the applicant’s claim of being unable to adjust to stateside duty is supported by any credible evidence which would justify his extensive absences after his return to the United States from the RVN.  His mental condition was such that it did not meet the criteria for processing through medical channels for consideration of a physical disability (medical) discharge.  The applicant had many means available at his military installation to help him overcome his adjustment difficulties, but there is no evidence that he availed himself of any of these resources.  Therefore, the Board concludes that his current discharge is proper and equitable and declines to further upgrade or to change the reason for his discharge.  

6.  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

_rjw    ___  __js   ___  __ ra____  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Boards for Correction
of military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030204	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700506	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212, 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A144.20	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.