MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           21 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063359

	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		Director	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: That he admits that when he joined the Army he was young and foolish and now asks for sympathy and mercy.  He is now old and needs medical care.  He received medical treatment at the Veterans Medical Center at Huntington, West Virginia, in 1968, but cannot get treatment at the Veterans Medical Center in Kentucky.  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered the Regular Army on 23 January 1964, at the age of 17 with 9 years of education.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 34, which places him in mental category three indicating an average learning ability.  He completed basic training and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington for training as a heavy-duty truck driver.

On 17 September 1964, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself without authority from his unit from 11 September 1964 through 16 September 1964.  His punishment was an oral reprimand.  

On 1 June 1965, special court-martial order number 28 was prepared, that indicates that the applicant was found guilty off three charges with five specifications.  Among the charges were disrespect towards an officer and AWOL.  His punishment was confinement at hard labor for six months, which was suspended for six months.

On 31 August 1965, he accepted NJP for operating a vehicle without possessing a valid operators license, and the vehicle he was operating was defective due to a burned-out headlight.  His punishment was restriction and extra duty for 14 days.

On 16 September 1965, the applicant acknowledged that his company commander had counseled him that he was recommending the applicant for discharge under Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, and that he was fully aware of the fact that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate may be issued to him. The applicant acknowledged that he was aware of his rights and that he did not want to seek counsel or desire to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 29 September 1965, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  He commented the applicant refused to adjust to military regulations or discipline despite all attempts to rehabilitate him.

The appropriate authority approved the discharge request and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 2 November 1965, after 1 year, 6 months, and 24 days of service, the applicant was discharged.

On 19 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

On 26 February 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's second request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  This regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Title 38, United States Code, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations determines who is eligible for its services.

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.  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 above requirement.

2.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service, considered his education and age at time of enlistment and his request for an upgrade to receive medical benefits.  The Board concluded that 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.  Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharges merely to qualify an applicant for a benefit or program.
3.  The Board has no jurisdiction over the Department of Veterans Affairs and therefore cannot address the applicant's concerns regarding eligibility for treatment at their medical facilities.

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

__jlp_____  ___bje__  ___tl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063359	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020521	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.