MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            19 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020577

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. 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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a better discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made mistakes in the service more than 27 years ago.  He has been a member for 20 years in his local union, suffers from nightmares after being in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and would like his discharge upgraded in order to gain self respect.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 27 February 1970, and completed his initial training in military occupational specialty 70A10 (clerk).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.

He was then assigned to the 75th Rangers, in the RVN in August 1970.  His primary duties were as a duty driver and working in the supply room.

Many of the applicant’s records are missing.  However, documents in his records show two periods of lost time from 10-19 April 1971 and from 5-29 May 1971.  Also, while he was stationed in the RVN, a Criminal Investigation (Division) Command (CID) Report of Investigation was completed.  The CID report titled the applicant for larceny.  The larceny occurred when the applicant allegedly took a camera from the supply room where he worked and sold it to another member on 4 June 1971.  The investigation further disclosed that, while the CID began searching for other possible contraband in the applicant’s barracks, he was observed by at least three individuals dropping two plastic vials into a trash container on 28 June 1971.  He was then placed in custody.  After testing the vials, it was determined that they both contained 0.33 grams of an illegal substance (Heroin).

The discharge packet is not a matter of record.  However, his records show that he transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington, and was separated on 17 August 1971, with a UD, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 1 year, 4 months and 16 days of creditable service and 33 days of lost time.  The applicant’s record shows no confinement or nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  His awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal and the RVN Campaign Medal.  

On 17 May 1982 the applicant personally appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), with counsel.  However, the ADRB denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.  During that appearance, he had the opportunity to review his military records and the copy of the CID ROI.
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 (UD), Under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning all the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.

3.  The applicant’s entire record of service was considered during the review of this case.  The Board was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and that the applicant’s prior service was not sufficiently mitigating to grant the relief requested.

4.  The applicant’s good post service adjustment is commendable; however, it does not overcome the seriousness of the drug related offenses for which he requested an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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

JNS            RWA          RGH          DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020577	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999-05-19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971 08 17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200/CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A9223	
ISSUES         1.	A9225	
2.	144.67	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.		

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999017410	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999-05-19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975-12-15	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A68.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	A01.13	
3.	A92.23	
4.	A92.35	
5.		
6.