MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075901

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN); his duties included assigning helicopter pilots and door gunners to many different types of missions involving the war in the RVN.  As a flight coordinator he sent the pilots on missions and communicated with them by radio.  He heard first hand the screams as they were being shot down.  He could not live with himself knowing that he sent many of them to their deaths.

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

On 15 September 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (light weapons infantryman).
The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On or about 20 February 1970, the applicant departed for assignment in the RVN.  He was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 7th Calvary, 1st Calvary Division (Airmobile) as a rifleman.  He was also assigned to Company C,
229th Aviation Battalion, 1st Air Calvary Division as a flight operator coordinator, a clerk typist, and as a shop clerk.  On 11 May 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged and reenlisted on 15 May 1970, for a total of 6 years.  

On or about 22 February 1971, the applicant departed the RVN.  He was reassigned to the 8th Evacuation Hospital, Fort Ord, California.

On 17 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudical punishment under Article 
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
30 April to 11 May 1971 and from 12 to 15 May 1971.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 and 14 days restriction.

On 3 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 July to 6 August 1971 and from 11 August 1971 to 
22 February 1972.

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit of separation.

On 4 April 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and 
that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administrations benefits.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf.  The applicant stated in effect, that his reasons for going AWOL were because he was having martial problems.

The applicant’s commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with an undesirable discharge.

On 14 April 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 
3 May 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a GD.  He completed 1 year, 11 months and 26 days of creditable active service and he had 233 days of lost time.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows an additional 
period of AWOL from 27 April to 3 May 1972.

On 27 April 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a change in the type and nature of discharge, under the 
Department of Defense Special Review Program.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

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 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.

2.  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 trail 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.

3.  Normally an undesirable discharge is generally considered for this type of offense.  However, the applicant’s Vietnam service and personal decorations was taken into consideration in giving a GD. 

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

__JHL__  __MVT__  ___RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068528	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/17	
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.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.