MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  13 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031012

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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 conditions other than honorable be upgrade to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served honorably in Vietnam but returned with an alcohol problem.  He had a lot of personal and family problems and could not cope with continued service.  What happened when he returned was beyond his control and he was not offered any help beyond an undesirable discharge.

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

He enlisted at 21 years of age and entered active duty on 6 March 1967.  He completed training as a communications center specialist and was later assigned to Vietnam.  He was promoted to grade E-4 effective 14 April 1968.  He completed his assignment in Vietnam and reenlisted on 25 November 1968.

The applicant was convicted by special court-martial on 20 January 1970 for 128 days AWOL.  His punishment included reduction to grade E-2 and 27 days confinement.  He was convicted by summary court-martial on 21 May 1970 for 89 days AWOL that had been terminated by apprehension by civil authorities.  He was AWOL again on 25 May 1970 until 10 August 1970.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 18 August 1970 that resulted in a diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality disorder, severe and was not believed to be amenable to further rehabilitative efforts.  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and was responsible for his actions.  He had no physical or mental defect sufficient to warrant other disposition through medical channels.  The psychiatrist also noted that the applicant stated he would continue going AWOL; that he had been drinking heavily; that he is in debt with two previous marriages, and that his current girlfriend may be pregnant.  He was cleared for administrative separation.

On 21 September 1970 he was informed of contemplated separation for unfitness based on his record of AWOL.  On 25 September 1970, after consultation with counsel, he waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers, to submit statements in his behalf, and representation by counsel.  He stated that he understood that he may be ineligible for many or all veterans benefits from the Federal or state government and that he may encounter prejudice in civilian life based on the undesirable discharge he may receive.

The commander recommended discharge for unfitness on 29 September 1970 citing the applicant’s lengthy AWOL periods, poor attitude, unwillingness to serve, and resistance to authority required of a soldier.  The separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
Effective 20 October 1970 the applicant was discharged in grade E-1 under other than honorable conditions under authority of AR 635-212.  His DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that he had 2 years, 10 months, and 8 days creditable service.  Other evidence of record indicates that his lost time was actually 318 days.

On 4 January 1972 and 9 March 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.  Both requests were denied based on his clear record of substandard performance and despite his satisfactory service in Vietnam.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted 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 applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

2.  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.

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 the aforementioned 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

__FE___  __SW___  __CA___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031012	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000413	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19701020	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 Ch 6	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A51.00	
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.