MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           07 FEBRUARY 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064400

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  Upgrade of his discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the only reason he accepted the administrative discharge was because he was told it would be upgraded in 6 months, and that he was only AWOL (absent without leave).  He states that he was only 18 when he was drafted, and suffered a very traumatic event prior to being AWOL.  He states he was suffering from PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder).  He asks that his discharge be upgraded in order for him to receive compensation for his service connected PTSD.  In support of his request, he submits a copy of his application for compensation from the VA.  

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

He was inducted and entered active duty on 29 January 1969, at the age of 20, with 11 years of formal education, and a GT (general technical) score of 94.

In April 1969, while undergoing advanced individual training, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) for 8 days of AWOL.  Following completion of training, he was assigned to Korea, where he was convicted by a special court-martial for AWOL, and punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ, also for AWOL.

The applicant returned to the United States in August 1970, and failed to report to his new unit of assignment at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He was ultimately returned to military control in February 1971, but departed AWOL again, before disciplinary action was taken.  He was dropped from the roles of the Army on 
11 February 1971, but returned to military control on 25 February 1971.  The applicant was subsequently convicted by a second special court-martial of AWOL.

In June 1970 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (unfitness), and recommended the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his attendant rights. He acknowledged that he understood he might be ineligible for many, or all benefits as a veteran, if he received an undesirable discharge.  He also acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, as a result of the character of his discharge.

On 2 July 1971 the applicant was discharged "under conditions other than honorable" and was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  At the time of 

his separation, he had approximately 20 months of creditable service, and more than 250 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The document submitted in support of the applicant’s request does not describe the "traumatic event" which the applicant claims occurred prior to his being AWOL.  His separation physical examination, conducted on 19 May 1971, is also silent regarding any traumatic event.  The applicant, on his report of medical history, indicated his health was good and that he was not suffering from any sort of depression or excessive worry.  His commander indicated that the applicant had undergone a mental status evaluation, but that evaluation was not in records available to Board.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly inappropriate.

In 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

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 contention that he was suffering from PTSD at the time he departed AWOL is not supported by any evidence submitted by him, or contained in records available to the Board.

2.  The Board also notes that during the applicant’s separation processing, he acknowledged that he might not be eligible for veteran benefits as a result of an undesirable discharge.  As such, the evidence of record does not support his contention that he was told that his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months.

3.  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 that requirement.

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

__FNE __  __MKP__  ___LE___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064400	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.