MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 May 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064909

         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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he is entitled to have his discharge upgraded on both proprietary and equitable grounds. In an affidavit submitted through his attorney, he states, in effect, that seeing so much death and destruction and losing so many new friends at such a young age profoundly affected him and his judgment. He states that he was not able to cope with all of the death and destruction and he turned to drugs and alcohol to deaden the effect of the nightmares. He states that he reached out for help, but was not taken seriously. He states that all of the horrors of Vietnam coupled with his drug and alcohol problems impaired his ability to make sound decisions and to serve his country in the manner he had planned when he enlisted in the Army.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant's discharge should be upgraded on equitable and proprietary considerations. He submitted a brief in support of the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge. Included with the brief are: copies of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), DA Form 20B (Record of Conviction), SF 89 (Report of Medical History – Induction), DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), DD Form 4 (Enlisted Record – Armed Forces of the United States), and General Orders Number 153, dated 20 June 1967, awarding the applicant the Purple Heart Medal; an affidavit from the applicant; the applicant's letter to the VA; two letters regarding his Vietnam experiences; one letter of reference; and a letter from his mother.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was not available to the Board. However, information provided by the applicant indicates that he was 18 years and 3 days old on 7 September 1966 when he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. On 12 September 1966, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for basic combat training (BCT). Upon completion of BCT, the applicant was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for advanced individual training (AIT). Following all military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11 B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

Between 15 January 1967 and 27 March 1967 at Fort Gordon, the applicant accumulated two periods of AWOL. On 28 March 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully having in his possession, with intent to deceive, a certain instrument purporting to be a pass, and being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 March 1967 to 10 March 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 6 months, forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to private/E-1. The sentence was suspended; however, between periods of AWOL and pre-trial confinement, the applicant accumulated 32 days of lost time.
On 12 May 1967, the applicant was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam as his first permanent duty station. On 19 June 1967, the applicant suffered fragment wounds to his right hand while engaging the enemy in hostile fire. On 21 June 1967, he was awarded the Purple Heart for these wounds by General Orders Number 153, Headquarters, 93^rd Evacuation Hospital.

On 5 November 1967, the applicant was reported AWOL from his unit in Vietnam. He remained AWOL until 12 November 1967.

On 26 June 1968, the applicant departed the Republic of Vietnam enroute to Fort Hood, Texas. He did not report to Fort Hood and was AWOL from 26 June 1968 to 20 July 1968 and again from 7 August 1968 to 13 October 1968. On 28 October 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of these two periods of AWOL. He was sentenced to CHL for 6 months, forfeiture of $97.00 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction to private/E-1. The applicant was confined for 41 days from 18 October 1968 to 27 November 1968.

The applicant's separation documents are not in the file. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with the military or civil or military authorities. He was discharged on 4 December 1968, with a UD after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of active military service and accruing 172 days of lost time. He was credited with the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Purple Heart, two Sharpshooter Badges (M-14 Rifle and M-60 Machine Gun), and the Marksmanship Badge for the M-16 Rifle.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

On 25 May 2000, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) adding the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15 year statute of limitations.

---

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. The Board noted the applicant's contention that drugs, alcohol, and the horrors of Vietnam impaired his ability to serve. The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as his misconduct. The Board determined that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the Board concluded that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct, many of which occurred before he went to Vietnam, did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.

2. Barring any evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed that the applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Section I, Paragraph 6, Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3. The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined in his application and in the documents with his application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

4. 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.

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

___dph___ ___kan__ ___mhm_ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064909
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020514
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19681204
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.9405
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.