MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034468

	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.

	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he wants his discharge upgraded to allow him entitlement to VA benefits for medical treatment.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) dated 6 May 1998.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 28 May 1964 for a period of 4 years.  He served as a general supply specialist in Alaska for 16 months and was honorably discharged on 31 May 1966 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 1 June 1966 for a period of 4 years. 

On 3 August 1966 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty.    

The applicant was convicted by special court-martial on 1 September 1966 for leaving the scene of an accident without making his identity known and failing to report the accident, breaking restriction and appearing in an improper uniform.  He was sentenced to hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $64 per month for
6 months and reduction to E-1.  On 2 September 1966 the convening authority approved the sentence. 

The applicant was transferred to Vietnam on 15 January 1968 and served as an armorer, stock control & accounting specialist and communication center specialist until 14 January 1969.  

Between 29 March 1969 and 28 July 1969, NJP was imposed against the applicant on three separate occasions for operating a vehicle in a reckless manner and failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty (three specifications). 

The applicant’s records show that he went AWOL on three occasions from 
31 July 1969 until 14 August 1969; 22 August 1969 to 21 October 1969; and
1 November 1969 to 6 December 1969.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 8 December 1969 for the aforementioned AWOL periods.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended. 

On 16 December 1969, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for 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 indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA.  Additionally, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that he had been taking drugs for 7 years and that he wanted out of the Army because of his drug use and what he witnessed in Vietnam.  He also stated that he had over 6 months of lost time and that he was “ruled mentally unbalanced by Mental Hygiene” at Fort Hood, Texas. 

The applicant was medically cleared for separation on 24 December 1969 with a physical profile of 111111.  He also underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 
16 February 1970 and was psychiatrically cleared for separation with a diagnosis of instability, emotional.   

The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved.

On 20 February 1970 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 26 February 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 5 years, 10 months and 8 days of total active service and he had 136 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on
17 August 1971 for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal on 20 July 1972.    
 
The applicant applied to the ADRB on 3 March 1978 for an upgrade of his discharge to general.  On 21 June 1979, the ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal.  

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.

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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he wants his discharge upgraded to allow him entitlement to VA benefits for medical treatment.  However, evidence of record shows that 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.  

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 the aforementioned 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

GDP____  MMD____  JS______  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034468	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700226	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.