Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                               AC97-08967
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             2 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-08967

	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. Loren G. Harrell | | Director
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | | Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | | Chairperson
| Mr. George D. Paxson | | Member
| Mr. John H. Kern | | 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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge and that he be
issued a citation for his Silver Star award.

 APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he returned from his second combat tour
with a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was not evaluated, diagnosed, or treated.  He also states that he was an alcoholic trying to numb his feelings, which affected his judgement.  He further stated that he was in the process of filing for a divorce and bankruptcy, and could not adjust to a non-combat unit.

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

He enlisted on 17 June 1965 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed
his training as a light weapons infantryman and received excellent conduct and
efficiency ratings.  He continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.

On 24 April 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for violation of a lawful general regulation and for disobeying a lawful
order from a senior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and 14 days restriction
and extra duty.  

On 4 January 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey
a lawful general order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and
30 days restriction and extra duty.

On 30 November 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, and 12 days restriction and extra duty.  

On 15 March 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to
his prescribed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, detention and restriction.

The applicant served in Vietnam from 23 November 1965 to 3 November 1966 and from 19 March 1970 to 24 January 1971.  He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal w/four bronze service stars, three Overseas Service Bars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 device, the Air Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, the Silver Star, the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Vietnamese Parachutist Badge, the German Parachutist Badge, the Senior Parachutist Badge, and the Parachutist Badge.

The applicant’s service record indicates that the applicant was awarded the 
Silver Star award on 12 June 1971 by General Order #87.  However, the applicant states that he was never issued the citation for his award.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not
present in the available records.  However, the available records show that he was AWOL from 24 April 1972 to 1 June 1972.  His DD Form 214 shows that on 2 November 1972, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 7 years, 2 months, and 4 days of total active service.

A staff member from the Board contacted officials at the awards branch of 
the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) in reference to this case.  The staff member was informed that absent the presence of his Silver Star orders in his official records, there is not a copy on file to provide to the applicant.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the
applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

2.	Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed 
and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.	The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence 
submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.	Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.  
However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

5.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was awarded the Silver
Star; however, there is not a copy of the orders present in his official records.  Therefore, the Board cannot provide him a copy as he has requested.

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

__rvo ___  __gp____  __jhk____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID | AC97-08967
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 1998/12/02
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/11/02
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | NC
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  A70.00 |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |