MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075286

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and foolish and made the biggest mistake of his life.  He was a good soldier.  He earned the Expert Infantryman Badge; he received many letters of commendation; he was picked for the Honor Guard for General Haig when he came to their post and also for the Honor Guard when President Carter went to Normandy to celebrate D-Day.  He received an honorable discharge for his first enlistment.  He was transferred from Germany to Fort Carson, CO in 1978 and, only 3 months later, was sent back to Germany for the Reforger exercise to work for the battalion commander.  He was picked for this task because he was a good soldier and spoke fluent German.  While at Fort Carson, he found himself with soldiers who were using drugs and was swept up into the slime of heroin.  He had also followed the wrong crowd in Germany but that time he was sent to a drug program and was deemed a rehabilitation success.  However, in Colorado he was using heroin again and that time the drugs won.  He has been drug free since 1982/83.  At the time, he was so sick from the drugs he did not even know what he was doing.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 April 1975.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He was honorably discharged on 8 December 1977 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 9 December 1977.  His Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, for this period shows he was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge and the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

Permanent Orders 87-13, U. S. Army Regional Support Center, Stuttgart dated 27 June 1978 awarded the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 30 April 1975 - 29 April 1978.  His Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that he was awarded the Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar on 15 March 1978 and also requalified as a sharpshooter with the M-16 on that date.

The applicant's service medical records and discharge packet are not available.

An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) packet indicates the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 - 25 October 1979 and from 25 October - 2 December 1979; that a separation physical was 

accomplished on 4 December 1979; that he consulted with counsel, requested 
discharge, and made no statement in his behalf on 13 December 1979; and that the approval authority approved his request and directed he be given a discharge UOTHC on 23 January 1980.

On 18 February 1980, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 after completing    2 years and 17 days of creditable active service for that period and a total of        4 years, 7 months, and 25 days of creditable active service and had 56 days of lost time.  His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was separated on temporary records.  It shows he was awarded no awards and decorations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the 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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.  

The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.  He indicated that he was having marital problems and was a drug addict and could not deal with everyday life.  He indicated that if he had gone back to Germany he knew he would die from drugs.  He included a certificate from a civilian rehabilitation center which indicated he successfully completed the inpatient phase of the program on 23 October 1981.

On 15 July 1982, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.  It noted that it appeared from the available records that the applicant had been placed on orders to report to Germany around October 1979.  He instead went AWOL.  In a Personnel Confinement Facility interview, the applicant had stated that he was having marital problems due to his wife saying she would not go to Germany.  He turned himself in after learning his brother had told the police of his location.  Once learning that he still would be going to Germany, he went AWOL a second time.  He had stated that he wanted out because his wife meant more to him and that he could no longer cope with the military.  Also, since he had been involved in drugs in Germany he was afraid that if he returned he would again become involved.  

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 and, 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.

2.  Although there is no evidence of record to show the applicant had a drug problem while he was in the Army, the Board notes his contention that he had completed drug rehabilitation while in Germany but he became involved in drugs again after arriving at Fort Carson, CO.  (It appears he did not mention his involvement with drugs while at Fort Carson during his interview after his return from AWOL).  He was fully aware of the dangers of beginning drug use again.  He could have turned himself in for drug addiction again and received additional treatment.  

3.  However, it appears that the primary reason for the applicant's discharge was not drug use but his going AWOL because his wife did not want to go to Germany.  The applicant was an experienced soldier and knew there would be penalties for going AWOL.  He could have accepted a court-martial; instead, he voluntarily elected to request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant's efforts to overcome his drug problem.  However, considering the length of his AWOL, the type of discharge given was appropriate.

5.  The Board notes that the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending       18 February 1980 is incomplete in regards to his awards and decorations.  He had been awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar in addition to his previously awarded Expert Infantryman Badge and Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division will be directed to amend the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 February 1980 to show he was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAK__  __TAP__  __BJL__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075286	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/02/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.