MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:         


         BOARD DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002066391

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Mr. John E. Denning		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and had a drinking problem at the time and now wishes that he could go back and change things. He states that he had a drinking problem before he went into the Army and when he was stationed at Fort Campbell, near his hometown, he continued to drink with his former "drinking buddies." He notes that he was subsequently assigned to Vietnam and served successfully there and was promoted. He states, however, that upon returning to the United States he attempted to block out the memories of Vietnam by drinking. The applicant states that he has since conquered his drinking problem, has suffered job and hearing loss as a result of injuries he incurred while in the military, and that he served his country as honorably as he could under the circumstances. Except for his self-authored statement, he does not submit any other evidence in support of his request.

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

He was residing in Clarksville, Tennessee at the time he enlisted in the Army and entered active duty on 23 June 1966. His enlistment document indicates he was 17 years old at the time, had no record of any violations or offenses, had completed 8 years of formal education, and had a GT (general technical) score of 97. The applicant indicated on his enlistment physical examination that his health was good and made no mention of any alcohol related problems.

The applicant successfully completed basic, advanced individual, and airborne training prior to being assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky as a cook's helper in November 1966.

In May 1967 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He returned to military control in May 1967 and was ultimately convicted by a special court-martial. His punishment included confinement at hard labor, forfeiture, and reduction to pay grade E-1.

In December 1967 the applicant was reassigned to Vietnam as an artilleryman. By November 1968 he had been promoted to pay grade E-5. Prior to his departure from Vietnam, in November 1968, he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service and two awards of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement.







Following his return to the United States, the applicant was assigned Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In February 1969 he was punished twice under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), once for AWOL and twice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 3 March 1969 the applicant again departed AWOL. He returned to military control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 26 March and on 10 April 1969 departed AWOL again. He was then dropped from the rolls of the Army. The applicant returned to military control on 22 June 1969 and was convicted by a special court-martial. His punishment included confinement at hard labor, forfeiture, and reduction to pay grade E-1.

Upon his release from confinement, in July 1969, the applicant was assigned to Fort Campbell as a duty soldier and in September 1969 he was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. However, on 24 September 1969 he once again departed AWOL. He was dropped from the rolls of the Army in October 1969 and returned to military control at Fort Campbell in December 1969. Although there is no evidence, in available records, regarding disciplinary actions following this last period of AWOL, the applicant's records do indicate that he was confined from 8 December 1969 through 3 March 1970 when he was assigned as a duty soldier at Fort Riley, Kansas and promoted to pay grade E-2.

On 30 March 1970 the applicant requested permission to reenlist. His request was ultimately denied but the U.S. Army Enlistment Eligibility Activity did authorize the applicant to "extend his current enlistment for twelve months for the purpose of further observation."

The applicant apparently did not accept that offer and on 10 July 1970 was released from active duty, as a result of his ETS (expiration term of service), under honorable conditions and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. At the time of his separation he had 3 years of creditable service and more than 350 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant's separation physical examination notes that the applicant's health was good and made no mention of any alcohol related problems. Other than his entrance and separation physical examinations, the applicant's service medical records were not part of the records available to the Board.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, noted that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose





military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. It stated that a general discharge could be issued if an individual had been convicted of an offense by a general court-martial or had been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment period. The decision to issue a general discharge was discretionary.

Today, Army Regulation 635-200 states that a soldier being separated upon his ETS or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of honorable unless an entry-level characterization is authorized.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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. It is apparent that the applicant’s separation authority determined, in spite of the applicant’s combat experience and awards, that a general discharge most appropriately characterized the applicant’s service. That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time. The applicant’s contention that he served his country as honorably as he could under the circumstances is not a basis to upgrade his discharge, nor is the fact that he served until his ETS.

2. There is nothing which mandates that today’s standards be retroactively applied. As such the Board concludes that in the absence of compelling evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s characterization of service it would be inappropriate for the Board to substitute its judgment for that of the commander on the ground at the time who acted well within his authority. The Board notes that the applicant’s character of service does not deny him any veteran benefits.

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 that 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

__JNS __ __BJE___ __JED __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066391
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020214
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.