MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 June l999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023069

	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	
	M Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, in a letter written in his own behalf that he never once failed to do what was expected of him.  He graduated from cadre school at the top of his class and was promoted to pay grade E-5.  In July 1967, he lost consciousness when he fell and hit his back and his head on a steel "conex" container.  He was evaluated by a doctor and was told that he would be alright.  In September 1967, he left the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and went home on leave to take care of some personal problems.  He did not have enough money to return.  He was unsuccessful in getting help from Fort Knox, Kentucky or other military facilities.  He wrote his commander and never received a response.  After that he began to have headaches, and he would black out and not have any memory of what had taken place for large amounts of time.  He stayed in touch with his local sheriff's department to see if they had anything from the Army concerning his AWOL.  The police department had nothing until September 1973, when he turned himself in and waited for the military police.  He was transported to Fort Knox, and placed in the stockade.  Later he was sent to the Special Processing Company, at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox.  While there he was examined by a number of doctors who appeared not to care about him.  They were only interested in getting him in and out of the health facility.  He is proud of the time he served in the military and would have gladly served out the rest of his enlistment obligation, had he been asked to.

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

On 23 September 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Lineman) until he was honorably discharged on 22 September 1966.  On 23 September 1966, he reenlisted in the RA for 3 years, pay grade E-3, and his present MOS.  He served in Germany from 11 March 1966 through 1 May 1967 and his conduct and performance ratings were excellent.

On 20 June 1967, he was assigned to the RVN.  His conduct and performance ratings were again excellent until he departed his unit on 21 September 1967, on 30 days ordinary leave.  Upon expiration of his leave, he was granted a 14 day extension.  He did not return to his unit on 5 November 1967, when his leave extension expired.  He was declared AWOL on that date.

Evidence of record shows that the applicant surrendered to civil authorities in Kentucky on 16 August 1973, and he was returned to military control at Fort Knox on 29 August 1973.

The applicant's commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of section VII, Army Regulation 635-206, for excessive AWOL.  The notification letter is not a matter of record. 

On 28 September 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel concerning the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and further legal representation.   He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 28 September 1973, a mental status evaluation and a medical separation examination found him to be medically fit for separation.

On 11 October 1973, the applicants commander recommended separation with a UD.  On 19 October 1973, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD. 

On 31 October 1973, he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for excessive AWOL with a UD.  He had completed 1 year of active military service on his previous enlistment and he had completed 1 year, 
3 months and 14 days of creditable active service on the enlistment under review.  He also had 1,784 days lost time during his enlistment and 340 days of lost time subsequent to the normal end of his term of service (ETS).

Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Section VII contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for desertion or unauthorized absence continued for more than 1 year.  A UD was normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

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 discharge was appropriate because his misconduct was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct by military personnel.  The applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct. 
3.  The Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance for his financial and personal problems without committing the misconduct which has led to the separation action under review.

4.  Evidence of record indicates that the applicant received both a mental status evaluation and a medical separation examination by professionally trained personnel that found him to be medically fit for separation.  

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

_RVO’C _  _GCM___  __CLG__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023069	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990624	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721002	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A63.00	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	A01.13	
3.	A92.17	
4.	A92.31	
5.	A93.07	
6.	A93.09