MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           19 March 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064021

	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	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. 		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should be changed on the grounds of reasonable doubt and also the evidence in his military records.  He also states that his 201 file will show he was not a bad soldier.  He received the Good Conduct Medal while in Vietnam and even reenlisted for Vietnam service.  He also states that he broke under the stress of combat after 10 1/2 months.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1 on 16 January 1969 and served continuously until his discharge on 19 September 1969.

He reenlisted on 20 September 1969 and attained the rank of pay grade E-4 on 10 February 1971.

He was reported AWOL from 2 December 1969 to 25 February 1970.

On 7 March 1968, a special court-martial convened for this AWOL.  He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months hard labor.

A psychiatric examination on 5 October 1970 found the applicant to have a passive-aggressive personality, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to adapt to military life.  There is no evidence of mental disease, defect, or derangement sufficient to warrant medical disposition and the subject was and is mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  It was strongly recommended the applicant be separated from the service.

On 29 June 1971, his commander recommended he be eliminated from the service for unsuitability.  The commander states that the action was based on the fact that the applicant had established a pattern of shirking his duties and using dangerous drugs, and that rehabilitation would be unsuccessful.  

He was discharged on 28 July 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability, and issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He had a total of 1 year, 7 months and 14 days net active service this period and 85 days lost time.

His records show he received conduct ratings of “Unsatisfactory”, and efficiency ratings of “Unsatisfactory”.  He received one field grade Article 15 and one company level Article 15, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for misconduct.

The applicant’s discharge proceedings are not a matter of record.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was not a bad soldier, he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and broke under the stress of combat service.  However, the applicant received conduct and efficiency ratings of ”Unsatisfactory” and his commander felt that any further attempts at rehabilitation would be unsuccessful.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.  

3.  In view of the applicant's overall record for his period of service from 20 September 1969 to 28 July 1971, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. 

5.  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.

6.  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

_sep____  _sk____  _eja____      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064021	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020319	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.