MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064598

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should not have been “Other Than Honorable”.  He contends, in effect, that he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); that his father was dying and his request for leave was denied because his chain of command was prejudiced against him; that his father died while he was in Vietnam; and that he had drug and alcohol problems in the service and was not afforded treatment.  In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 8 October 2001, from the Veterans Service Officer in Sandstone, Minnesota; a letter, dated 9 August 2001, from the Review Boards Agency in St. Louis, Missouri; a DD Form 293 (Application fro the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 13 June 2001; a letter, dated 27 July 2001, from the Veterans Service Officer in Sandstone, Minnesota; a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge); a copy of his father’s Death Certificate; a letter from the applicant, dated 13 July 2001, to the Minnesota Department of Corrections; copies of clinical records from the State of Minnesota Department of Corrections; and copies of service personnel records.        

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

The applicant enlisted on 20 November 1969 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Alaska for duty as a wheel vehicle repairman.  He served in Alaska from 8 May 1970 through 22 October 1970.

Records show the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 
23 November 1970 through 29 November 1970, while in transit to Vietnam.

On 30 November 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 23 November 1970 to 29 November 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant served as a wheel vehicle repairman in Vietnam from 7 December 1970 through 24 November 1971.

On 3 January 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for drunk driving.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, a forfeiture of pay and restriction.  

On 14 March 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer and possession of marijuana.  He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit $80 per month for 3 months, to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to be reduced to E-1.  On 7 April 1972, the convening authority approved the sentence.  

On 15 May 1972, only so much of the sentence promulgated on 7 April 1971 which provided for confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of $80 pay per month for 3 months and reduction to E-1 was affirmed.         

The applicant went AWOL on 22 June 1972 and was returned to military control on 29 August 1972.  

On 8 September 1972, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

Prior to separation, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and no significant mental illness was noted. 

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 September 1972 for the AWOL period.

On 13 September 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an Undesirable Discharge.  He also elected to submit a statement on his own behalf.  In summary, the applicant stated that he began using drugs while in Vietnam, that he went to a “Drug Amnesty Program” on three occasions for his drug addiction and that while he was in confinement it gave him a chance to stay away from drugs.  He stated that he was given a second chance when his bad conduct discharge was disapproved.  However, the first week at his new assignment he was notified that his father was dying and his request for leave was denied because he was new in the company.  At that point, he let his emotions take over and he went AWOL.  He goes on to state that he did not want an undesirable discharge but he did not know if he could adjust to military life any longer.  

The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.
On 27 September 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, on 3 October 1972, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 2 months and 11 days of total active service with 245 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

On 15 September 1975, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade to general.  However, the applicant’s application for review was withdrawn by his legal representatives (date unknown).                

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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he had PTSD.  However, evidence of record shows that prior to the applicant’s separation he underwent a mental status evaluation and a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that his father was dying and his request to go home was denied because his chain of command was prejudiced against him.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support these contentions.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his father died while he was in Vietnam is not supported by the evidence of record.  The applicant served in Vietnam from 
7 December 1970 through 24 November 1971.  The applicant provided a copy of his father’s Death Certificate which shows he died on 18 July 1972.  

4.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that he had drug and alcohol problems in the service and was not afforded any treatment.  However, evidence of record shows that the applicant provided a statement on his own behalf on 13 September 1972 which states that he went to a “Drug Amnesty Program” on three occasions for his drug addiction.

5.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  The Board also determined that the applicant’s military record which included two nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction and 245 days lost was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

7.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

8.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

9.  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.

10.  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____  EJA_____  RKS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064598	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020131	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721003	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.