MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 28 August 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001052362

         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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he joined the Army, completed all of his training requirements, became an airborne-qualified infantryman, and was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in 1965 at age 17. While serving in the RVN, he contracted malaria and it reoccurred on four separate occasions.

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

He had two periods of military service. At age 17 and with parental consent, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 15 January 1965. He was honorably discharged from this period of service on 12 January 1968. After a break in service, he reenlisted on 27 March 1969. On 22 January 1970, he again reenlisted for 3 years; this period of service ended with a UD on 24 May 1972, when the applicant was 24 years old.

After completing all required military training and being awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, the applicant completed basic airborne training on 28 June 1965. He then served in the RVN with the 1^st Cavalry Division from 20 July 1965-19 July 1966. During his RVN service, he was hospitalized in Camp Zama, Japan with malaria and hookworm infection from 18 November 1965-28 January 1966. He was subsequently hospitalized for a reoccurrence of malaria from 25 April 1966-22 June 1966.

Following his tour of duty in the RVN, the applicant was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for duty with the 101^st Airborne Division. During his service at Fort Campbell, his MOS was changed to 64B, Light Vehicle Driver.

The applicant was transferred from Fort Campbell to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he served as a vehicle driver in the 82^nd Airborne Division until he was honorably discharged on 12 January 1968 in pay grade E-5.

Upon reenlisting on 27 March 1969, the applicant was assigned to Thailand for temporary duty (TDY) from 19 April 1969-30 July 1969 and again from 18 September 1969-27 December 1969. When he returned from TDY in Thailand, he was reassigned to Fort Bragg.

On 22 January 1970, while he was assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years in pay grade E-4. He also reenlisted for his previous MOS (64B -- Light Vehicle Driver) and for assignment to the RVN.

On 1 April 1970, he was reassigned to the RVN and on 4 August 1970, he was promoted to pay grade E-5.
On 9 December 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language towards a commissioned officer and for refusing to surrender his identification card to the officer. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4.

On 31 March 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 10 December 1970-14 February 1971. He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1; forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 2 months, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months (with 2 months of the sentence to confinement suspended for 3 months). He served in confinement from 6 April 1971-10 May 1971. On 11 May 1971, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended until 16 June 1971.

On 10 July 1971, the applicant was reassigned from the RVN to Fort Bragg. On 15 August 1971, he failed to report to his new unit and was declared AWOL. He remained AWOL until he returned to military control at the 281^st Military Police Company, Thailand, on 23 February 1972.

On 4 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 15 August 1971-23 February 1972. On 5 April 1972, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 18 April 1972, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD. On 21 April 1972, his intermediate commander recommended separation with a UD. On 8 May 1982, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.

On 11 May 1972, the applicant underwent a physical examination and he was diagnosed with a mild neurosensory hearing loss and decreased range of motion in the right wrist. He was determined to be qualified for separation.

On 24 May 1972, he returned to the United States Army Personnel Center, Oakland, California for final separation processing and was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of active military service on the enlistment under review and he had completed a total of 5 years and 7 months of other service. He also had 297 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

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 or duress. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3. The applicant's conduct during the period of service under review was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4. The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their enlistments. In fact, the applicant successfully completed his initial enlistment and was honorably discharged. When he committed the offenses for which he was discharged with a UD, he was almost 24 years old.

5. 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

__jns ___ __rtd___ ___dph

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



                                            

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001052362
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2001089
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720524
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.7100
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.