MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 October 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074705

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr. 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unable to adjust to military life.  He was young and immature and, after he returned from Vietnam, he just wanted out of the Army regardless of the type of discharge.  He served honorably for at least 1½ years.  He now has medical problems, high blood pressure, diabetes and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and needs medical help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 10 September 1968, completed training as a field wireman and was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 13 February 1969.  He was posted to Vietnam where he was attached to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 6th Battalion, 77th Artillery on 23 February 1969.  On 23 March 1969, he was transferred to C Battery, 1st Battalion, 84th Artillery.  

He was convicted by a special court-martial, on 19 July 1969, of absence without leave (AWOL) from 28 March to 24 April 1969, 29 April to 2 May 1969, 31 May to 5 July 1969, and 7 July to 10 July 1969.  The approved sentenced included forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 4 months and confinement for 6 months.  

On 6 August 1969, he was returned to the United States and was discharged on 9 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to an established pattern of shirking.  He had 1 year, 9 months and 1 day of creditable service and 68 days lost time.

The details of the applicant's separation are not contained in the available records.

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 an established pattern of shirking.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of 

duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  The above criteria were designated primary criteria.  Consideration of other factors (secondary criteria), including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28 provides the policy and guidance for discharge review.  It provides, in pertinent part, that when it is determined that the rights of an individual were prejudiced by an error of fact, law, procedure or discretion such error will be considered material if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not occurred.

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 discharge should have been reviewed under the SDRP, but this failure is not a material error, within the meaning of DOD Directive 1332.28, because there is no substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same.  The applicant did not meet the primary criteria and the secondary criteria were not applicable since the applicant did not apply for consideration under the SDRP.

2.  The applicant's alleged youth and immaturity does not indicate that there is an error or injustice in the discharge because he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completing training, advancing to pay grade E-3 and serving for more than 6½ months without an offense of record.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  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.

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

__KAK__  __TBR___  __BJL___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074705	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021029	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690806	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A93.01	
2.	A92.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.