MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075662

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.   

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that at the time of his discharge following his tour in Vietnam, he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The applicant submits a letter to the Board in support of his application. 

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

On 13 March 1969, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with 8 months and 1 day of prior active service.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67N10 (Helicopter Repairman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.  The applicant voluntarily requested a 12- month tour in Vietnam.  On 8 April 1970, the applicant was assigned to a unit in Vietnam.  The applicant's conduct and efficiency while assigned to Vietnam was rated as unsatisfactory.     

Between 29 September 1970 and 8 September 1971, the applicant accepted six nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to repair, for three occasions of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 to 31 May 1971, from 16 to 30 August 1971 and from 3 to 7 September 1971 and for three occasions of disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1.   

The applicant's record indicates that on 15 September 1971 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  However, the court-martial charge sheet, which contains facts and circumstances pertaining to the charges, are missing from his file.  

On 27 September 1971, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged.  The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.  

On the same day, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s reluctance to adjust to military service. 

On 8 October 1971, a physical examination found the applicant fit for retention.

On 22 October 1971, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 1 November 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months and 27 days of creditable active military service. 

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

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.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.

3.  The contention of the applicant has been noted.  However, there is no evidence in his available record, which indicate that the applicant was suffering from PTSD during his enlistment in the Army.  

4.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was too severe.

5.  Therefore the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests. 

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

__MMD__  __  RA__  _ _CLG_ _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075662	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD,)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/11/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.7000		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.