MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  17 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002075065

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has an honorable discharge from his previous period of service where he served over 2 years in Vietnam.  After he reenlisted and returned to the United States he encountered marital, financial, and drinking problems.  He states that they tried to send him back to Vietnam but it was stopped.  He was married later and eventually his wife left and divorced him.  He moved his abusive stepfather and his mother to Virginia where he was stationed because his stepfather was very sick.  The applicant was drinking heavily and stopped caring about everything.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) for a long time and turned himself in.  He was later discharged.  He requests any help or assistance this Board can provide.  He submits copies of character reference letters and civilian treatment records in support of his application.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant served in Vietnam but had serious family problems when he returned which contributed to his disciplinary problems in the Army.  While his behavior is not condoned, counsel believes that a discharge upgrade is appropriate.

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

He was serving in Vietnam as a helicopter repairman in the pay grade of E-5 when he reenlisted on 27 August 1968.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he had served on active duty for 2 years, 8 months, and 21 days with no lost time.  He had served in Vietnam for 25 months.  It is noted from his available records that many of his authorized awards are not shown on his DD Form 214, dated 26 August 1968.  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division will be asked to administratively correct this record.

He was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland effective 16 October 1968.  On 30 March 1970, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go.  His punishment consisted of a pay forfeiture and extra duty.  Effective 22 July 1970, he was assigned to Fort Eustis, Virginia.  On 9 April 1971, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 8 days AWOL.  His punishment consisted of a pay forfeiture and a suspended restriction.  On 19 April 1971, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 2 days AWOL.  The punishment consisted of a pay grade reduction that was suspended for 90 days, a pay forfeiture that was suspended for 90 days, and extra duty that was set aside.  On 19 May 1971, the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-4 based on his failure to pay just debts, including child support, and his failure to report for duty.

Effective 2 June 1971, the applicant was AWOL again.  Effective 18 July 1972, the applicant surrendered to military authorities.  On 28 July 1972, after consulting with counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and may be denied many or all benefits as a veteran.  He waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

Although the action of the approval authority is not in the available record, effective 25 August 1972, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-1, under conditions other than honorable, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 5 years, 7 months, and 7 days creditable service and 411 days lost time.  It is noted from his available records that most of his authorized awards are not shown on his DD Form 214, dated 25 August 1972, and that his Total Active Service and Foreign Service are incorrect.  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division will be asked to administratively correct this record.

The character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant attest to his overcoming physical and psychological problems as well as his alcohol dependence.  It is stated that he is a community volunteer and has turned his life around to become an honest and trustworthy individual.  The civilian medical statements show that he is treated for various medical and psychological problems as well as his alcohol dependence.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant was ever counseled or punished for alcohol abuse in the Army or that he was treated for or sought treatment for alcohol abuse while in the Army.

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.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied for a discharge upgrade to the Army Discharge Review Board within the 15-year time limit.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant and counsel, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  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.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

3.  Although the applicant has a former period of service characterized as honorable, there does not appear to be sufficient matters presented to mitigate his lost time of 411 days that might allow the Board to upgrade his discharge.

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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division is asked to review the applicant's available records with a view of administratively correcting his DD Forms 214 to show all of his authorized awards and correcting blocks 22b and c of the DD Form 214, dated 25 August 1972.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ls___  __be____  ___wp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075065	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021217	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720825	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.