MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 July 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081397

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he completed 6 months of training and he was assigned to Vietnam with duties as an ambulance driver and for 14 months he hauled both dead and injured soldiers to the hospital.   He was a country boy and he knew nothing about drugs.  His whole life changed after he was introduced to drugs by other addicted solders when he began having nightmares and could not sleep.  He had reached a point where he would have tried anything to ease the pain associated with his environment.  He became very moody; he began sleeping late; he was unable to get to work on time and he was written-up by his superiors.  Finally, he was reduced from private first class, pay grade E-3, to private, pay grade E-1, and at this point, he just did not care anymore.  He accepted the UD when he was given the opportunity to get out of the military.

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

That on 14 January 1969, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Corpsman). 

On 17 July 1969, he was assigned to the 566th Medical Company in Vietnam with duties as an ambulance attendant.  On 8 September 1969, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-3, this was the highest pay grade that he achieved.

On 10 November 1969, due to reasons that are no longer contained in the available record, the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-2.

On 18 March 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of offering violence against a lieutenant (by communicating a threat); and by wrongfully appropriating an ambulance, of a value greater than $100.00, the property of the US Government, on 31 December 1969.  He was sentenced to forfeit $70.00 pay per month for 6 months and to reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1.  

On 7 April 1970, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey an order or regulation.  The NJP proceedings are also no longer contained in the available record.  

On 1 May 1970, the applicant was reassigned as a rehabilitative transfer to the 71st Evacuation Hospital, Vietnam, with duties as a ward orderly.

On 22 May 1970, the applicant received a summarized NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 20 and 22 May 1970.  His punishment included an oral reprimand.

On 4 August 1970, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant.  The reasons cited for the bar were the above offenses; that the applicant was a substandard soldier; that he had frequently been absent from his assigned section; that he had both failed to report to his unit and that he had left without proper authority.  He had also been repeatedly counseled and advised of the consequences of his chronic failure to repair without avail.  On the same date, the applicant declined to make a statement and to sign the waiver of statement.  On 12 August 1970, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

The applicant's records do not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding his departure from Vietnam for immediate separation processing.  However, on 26 September 1970, the applicant returned to Fort Lewis, Washington, for separation processing.  

The applicant's record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214  (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that was authenticated by the applicant at the time of separation.  The DD Form 214 shows that the applicant was separated with a UD on 26 September 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, due to an established pattern of shirking.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 13 days of active military service and his DD Form 214 shows no lost time.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and provided, in pertinent part, that members that demonstrated an established pattern of shirking or members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD 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.  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.  Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's departure from Vietnam for immediate separation processing are missing from the record, an available DD Form 214 shows that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  There is no evidence available to indicate that the applicant engaged in drug abuse or that his misconduct was directly related to drug abuse.  Even if true, drug abuse does not mitigate his actions or misconduct.  

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

__rwa___  __bje___  __lcb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081397	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030710	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700926	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.