MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031155

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not counseled or encouraged by his unit commander to contest his discharge, but was dismissed easily due to his heroin habit which started in Vietnam.  He offers that he was the outstanding graduate out of 250 soldiers in the heavy duty truck driving course and had an excellent record while serving his 1 year in Vietnam.  He became addicted to heroin while in Vietnam and when he returned to the United States, he went AWOL.  He was advised that his discharge could be contested, but being young and emotionally drained from the war and the deaths, he elected to walk away to try and forget.

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

He was inducted on 15 April 1971 and, after training, was assigned to Vietnam.  After only 7 months in Vietnam, the applicant was medically evacuated to the United States for reasons not available in the record.  He was assigned to the Medical Holding Detachment at Fort Carson, Colorado, and remained at Fort Carson after medical treatment was concluded.

The applicant went AWOL from his unit at Fort Carson on 26 May 1972 and remained absent until 7 October 1973.  On 17 October 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against him for AWOL.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him (which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge), that he did not desire further rehabilitation, and had no desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf, attributing his AWOL to personal and family problems, and also a hay fever problem for which the Army doctors would not help him.

A 17 October 1973 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1, indicating no physical or mental limitations for duty.  In the report of medical history which the applicant furnished for the examination, he stated his health was “good.”

On 25 October 1973, the separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the applicant’s request for separation in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 26 October 1973 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He had 1 year, 1 month and 19 days of creditable service and 511 days of time lost.

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

On 18 December 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

On 8 September 1978, the ADRB considered the applicant’s service under the provisions of the Discharge Review Program (Special) and declined to upgrade his discharge.  The Department of Defense (DOD), on 4 April 1977, directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special), or 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, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

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's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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 this 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

__mdm__  __wtm__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031155	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000627	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731026	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.