MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002080044

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Paul M. Smith		Member	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has suffered for 34 years, done the best that he could, and needs medical and dental treatment.  It would give him a peace of mind to have his discharged upgraded.

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

At the age of 17 years, he enlisted on 8 September 1964, as an armor crewman.
He served in Vietnam from 18 July 1966 to 17 July 1967.

On 28 June 1965, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-2, and 14 days restriction. 

On 27 April 1966, he was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 22 May 1966.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 13 March 1967 for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior officer.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay, and a suspended sentence of confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 
On 28 March 1967, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for inadvertently discharging his weapon.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and      7 days extra duty.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 21 February 1968 for being AWOL from 9 October to 7 December 1967 (59 days) and from 2 January to 30 January 1968 (28 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 6 months. 

On 27 February 1968, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until he
was arrested and apprehended by civilian authorities on 22 March 1968.  He was placed in civilian confinement.  

On 9 May 1968, the applicant was convicted by civil authorities for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle and was placed on probation for 3 years. On 24 May 1968 he was placed in the hands of military authorities.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 5 June 1968 for being AWOL from 27 February to 8 May 1968 (71 days).  His sentence consisted of 
confinement at hard labor for 3 months.  
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 20 June 1968, and was found qualified for separation.

On 8 July 1968 the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric examination which diagnosed the applicant as having an emotional instability reaction.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had a history of marked social inadaptability prior to, and during his tour in the service.  The applicant's condition was part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personal development of such a degree that he was not suited for further military service.  He used poor judgement, was not committed to productive goals, and was completed unmotivated.  He determined that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed the mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial board proceedings.               

On 29 July 1968, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.

On 30 July 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.  The applicant elected not to appeal.

On 23 August 1968, the approval authority directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 4 September 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil court conviction.  He had a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days of 
creditable service and had 272 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 25 February 1975.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 16 July 1975.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in
pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.  An undesirable discharge was 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.  The Board noted the applicant’s extensive record of AWOL and numerous other infractions of military order as well as his civil offense.  In view of these serious offenses and his undistinguished record of service, the Board determined that he was properly discharged and there was no inequity or injustice, which warranted upgrading his discharge.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant is unable to obtain Veterans Administration (VA) benefits due to his character of discharge.  While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges in order for applicants to obtain VA benefits.  

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

4.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  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.  

6.  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

__jl____  __ps____  __jp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080044	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030603	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680904	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	191/360	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.