MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           21 August 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083186

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able 		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith 		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 general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was having marital, family, and psychological problems following his return from his tour in Vietnam.  He states that he was unable to cope with the differences in attitude stateside and went AWOL (absent without leave) when his company commander did not authorize leave for him to go home to assist his wife.  

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

The applicant’s enlistment documents contain a police report showing that prior to entry the applicant had, as a minor, been arrested for theft, burglary, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, vagrancy, speeding, and possession of beer as a minor.

The applicant, at age 24, entered active duty on 30 October 1967.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

In March 1968 the applicant requested assignment near his wife due to complications arising from her pregnancy.

The applicant served in Vietnam with Company B, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division from 12 April 1968 through 6 February 1969.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in October 1968 and his conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent during this period.

The applicant was AWOL or in confinement for the following periods: 5 April 1969 through 20 May 1969, 6 June 1969 through 9 June 1969, 22 September 1969 through 21 October 1969, and 10 February 1970 through 29 June 1970.

A special court-martial, on 7 August 1969, found the applicant guilty of two periods of AWOL, and by a second special court-martial, on 14 July 1970, for a third period of AWOL. 

The applicant’s discharge packet is not of record.  

The applicant was discharged on 30 July 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with a characterization of service as under other than honorable.  He is shown to have had 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days of creditable service with 285 days lost.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer of Discharge) lists his awards as the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Sharpshooter Badge with Machinegun and Rifle Bars.

The applicant’s record contains a 12 October 1970 request for information from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary indicating that the applicant had been convicted of a felony and was incarcerated at that time.

In support of his request the applicant submits two personal statements from his sisters.  Both sisters state that following his return from Vietnam he was different; more aggressive, paranoid, abusive and became involved with drugs.  One sister describes the applicant has having become a career criminal and both state that he has been in trouble with the law almost constantly since his discharge.  They blame his Vietnam experience for his problems and believe he has been treated unfairly.  One believes that he suffers post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

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 frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, 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, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s 10 months of combat service in Vietnam, with award of the Purple Heart; but it finds these factors are not so meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that led to his discharge.  

2.  While the applicant’s sisters state that he was completely changed following his return from Vietnam, it is noted that the applicant had been committing serious civil offenses prior to entrance onto active duty and that this pattern of behavior has continued since his discharge.  

3.  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.

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

__JNS___  __RWA _  __RKS __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083186	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030821	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Upgrade of discharge 110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.