MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

                              		   10 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080329

	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. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		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 general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, when he learned that he was not physically qualified for combat duty he became disenchanted with the Army and concocted a means to get out.  The applicant’s statement infers that he either lied about taking drugs or started taking drugs to be discharged.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 30 July 1971.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT).  

On 13 December 1971, while in AIT, the applicant was transferred to the hospital and placed in the medical holding company on 20 January 1972.  The specific reason or circumstance leading to this hospitalization is not of record.

On 18 January 1972 the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service examined the applicant.  During that examination the applicant gave a history of multiple drug abuse both prior to and during his period of service.  He was diagnosed as having a character and behavior disorder manifested by chronic drug abuse and found not amiable to rehabilitation.  He was found to be able to distinguish between right and wrong and psychiatrically cleared to participate in any administrative actions.

On 24 January 1972, the applicant’s command commenced administrative discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.

On 25 January 1972, the applicant acknowledged and waived his rights to appear before and/or have his case reviewed by a board of officers, to submit a statement on his own behalf and/or to be represented by counsel.  He acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge and that if discharged with less than an honorable discharge it would be unlikely that he could get the character of his discharge changed at a later date.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for leaving the ward without authority and for disrespectful language toward a senior noncommissioned officer, on 1 February 1972.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 February 1972.  He returned to military control on 5 September 1972.

Upon his return to military control, the applicant’s command resumed the administrative discharge actions.

The discharge authority reviewed the recommendation and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged with a general, under honorable conditions, discharge.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged on 21 September 1972, under honorable conditions.  He is shown to have had 7 months and 3 days of creditable service with 206 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments shows that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL of more than 30 days.

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 that the applicant was already being processed for separation due to unsuitability when he went AWOL.  His command could have filed court-martial charges or processed him for unfitness, which could have resulted in a punitive or undesirable discharge.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  Considering all the circumstances of the case, but especially, that the applicant enlisted for 3 years but performed virtually no useful service, the character of the discharge is quite lenient.

3.  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.

4.  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

__SAC__  ___SLP__  ___JTM _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080329	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	upgrade	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.