MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           25 March 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075998

	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. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of his bad discharge.  He states that his receipt of an earlier honorable discharge, his awards and decorations, and his behavior and proficiency marks show he served honorably.  He also states that his service was impaired by family and personal problems, a drug problem, and by not working in his skill area.  He contends that his periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) may have been caused by post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He lists his post service personal and work history and accomplishments and asks for compassion. 

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

The applicant entered active duty on 1 April 1969.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer).  

The applicant’s record shows that he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 26 January 1971 for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 8 days.

During this period of service the applicant served in Korea and Germany and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) for Korea.  

On 30 March 1971, the applicant reenlisted in Germany and was reassigned to Vietnam from 24 September 1971 through 20 July 1972.  

The applicant’s record shows that he again received NJP on 7 September 1971 for 12 days AWOL.  No other NJPs are in the applicant’s file for the period of service in question.

Although the discharge packet is not of record, the available evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant would have had to be charged with the commission of an offense, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for which a punitive discharge was authorized.  

A 1 March 1974 Form Letter 381-1 (Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service) shows that the discharge authority approved a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The discharge authority directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, on 6 March 1974.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation form Active Duty) shows his awards and decorations as the NDSM, the AFEM, the Sharpshooter Badge for the M-14 rifle, and the Marksman Badge for the M-16 rifle.  

The applicant’s record shows that he had 1 year, 11 months, and 29 days of creditable service during his first period with 8 days of lost time and 1 year, 7 months, and 22 days during the period in question.  During his second period of service, the applicant was AWOL five times totaling 450 days and was in pretrial confinement for 20 days for a total of 470 days lost time during his second period of 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 an undesirable discharge.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualifications Record) shows that he served in Korea, from 14 September 1969 through 13 October 1970 (15 months); Germany, from 27 November 1970 through 9 July 1971 (8 months); and Vietnam, from 5 September 1971 through 20 July 1972 (7 months).  While in Vietnam, the applicant was attached to the 326th Engineer Battalion from 24 September 1971 through 28 December 1971, and the 501st Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade, (Separate), 1st Cavalry Division, from 29 December 1971 through 19 July 1972.

The DA Form 20 also shows his awards and decorations as the AFEM (Korea), the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Sharpshooter Badge for the M-14 rifle, and the Marksman Badge for the M-16 rifle.

In addition to those awards listed on his DD Form 214, he alleges he was awarded or is entitled to the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

The Vietnam Casualty Roster does not list the applicant as a combat casualty.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s records of entitlement to or award of the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation, or the Presidential Unit Citation. 

Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This document shows the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation was awarded to 326th Engineer Battalion for the period 6 through 19 September 1971.  No reference to the 501st Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade, (Separate), 1st Cavalry Division was found in this publication.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 also authorizes a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each designated campaign listed in Appendix B of the regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal.  A silver service star is authorized in lieu of five bronze service stars.  The regulation also lists the designated campaign periods for which a bronze service star is authorized for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal.  These include Consolidation I, ending on 30 November 1971; Consolidation II, ending on 29 March 1972 and Vietnam Cease Fire, ending on 28 January 1973.

In the applicant’s statement he indicates that he had family and personal problems, that he had developed a drug problem that he continued to suffer from for a number of years after his service, and that he may have been suffering from psychiatric problems that contributed to his inability to serve.

In support of his contentions that he had family problems he submits service documentation showing that he had requested and received a compassionate reassignment effective 25 April 1972 due to his mother’s poor health.  

In support of the contention that he may have been suffering from PTSD, he submits a 30 May 2002 statement from a family-counseling center affording him the diagnoses of chronic PTSD and poly-substance in full remission.

In addition to his personal statement, the applicant submits 11 letters from former employers commending him for his job performance and dedication. 

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.  There is no documentation that the applicant was entitled to or awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation, or the Presidential Unit Citation.

2.  It is presumed at the outset that the actions taken by the government are in accordance with law and regulation with no intent to deny the applicant his rights. In view of all the facts and circumstances in this case, along with the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant, there is no evidence of error or injustice in his discharge and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  Failing evidence that the applicant was suffering from a mental or emotional defect so severe that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, the PTSD issue does nothing to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.  

4.  While the Board notes the applicant’s admission of a drug problem and that he is now considered in remission, these matters do not outweigh the offenses that lead to his discharge.  The Board rejects the implication that illegal drug abuse necessarily mitigates both itself and the effects thereof.

5.  The Board notes the applicant’s prior honorable discharge, his service in Vietnam and the letters attesting to his good character and post-service adjustment and conduct.  However, the Board does not find that these factors were so meritorious as to outweigh the 478 days lost and actions that lead to the applicant’s separation. 

6.  The Board notes that the applicant’s DD 214 does not reflect the award of all of the awards and decorations for which he is authorized and entitled.  The Army Review Board (ARBA), St. Louis, will be requested to correct the applicant’s records to show that he is authorized, in addition to those awards and decorations already on his DD Form 214, the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

7.  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.

8.  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, St. Louis will be asked to issue a DD Form 215 to show that the applicant's authorized awards consist of the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary 

Medal for Korea, the Sharpshooter Badge for the M-14 rifle, the Marksman Badge for the M-16 rifle, the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS __  ___MHM_  ___JTM  _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075998	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030325	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.	144.04	
3.	144.0021	
4.	144.0027	
5.	144.7	
6.	144.92