MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 07 MAY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002068421

         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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That after being in Vietnam, he was mentally disturbed. He was hospitalized in 1974 for mental illness.

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

Information available to the Board indicates that the applicant’s original petition to the Board was denied on 12 February 1975. Subsequent to the original action, the applicant submitted another request, which was accepted as a request for reconsideration. On 11 June 1992 the applicant was informed that his contentions in that request did not amount to new material evidence sufficient to establish error or injustice; and consequently, his request was not considered by the Board. In the absence of the original Board proceedings, this Board has accepted the current applicant and elected to do a “De Novo” review in order to provide the applicant with a clear understanding why his discharge has not been upgraded.

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 5 August 1971, completed basic combat training and training as a clerk, and in June 1972 was assigned to Vietnam as a clerk-typist. He returned to the United States in December 1972. A 17 January 1973 clinical record prepared at Kimbrough Army Hospital at Fort Meade, Maryland, shows that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 17 December 1972 and discharged from that hospital on 20 December 1972. That record shows that the applicant was medically evacuated from Vietnam after turning himself in for drug abuse. That record indicates that the applicant had accidentally overdosed and spent 12 days in a rehabilitation center in Vietnam. It also indicates that his drug history dated back to age 17 when he used marijuana and speed on a monthly basis, and that after basic training he was introduced to heroin. The record shows that in September 1971 he started snorting and progressed to mainlining 3 times a day for a year, and that in Vietnam, he had been smoking about 6 caps per day for the past year, occasionally snorting or mainlining.

On 21 December 1972 the applicant was assigned to a transportation battalion at Fort Meade as a clerk-typist. The applicant was AWOL on six occasions, beginning in December 1972 until his confinement in the post stockade at Fort Meade for 51 days beginning in November of 1973. His periods of AWOL ranged from 3 days to 60 days.

In a 10 August 1973 correspondence to the applicant’s commanding officer, the drug rehabilitation officer at Fort Meade stated that the applicant had been entered into the drug rehabilitation program on 26 February 1973, having been referred to the program by Kimbrough Army Hospital, and that after leaving the program on 16 April 1973, he refused further rehabilitation. That officer stated that the applicant was considered unfit for further military duty, and recommended that he be discharged.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on three occasions for multiple periods of AWOL, leaving his place of duty, and for failure to go to his place of duty.

The applicant was charged with three additional counts of AWOL. On 19 November 1973 the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive, and that he might be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He declined to submit statements in his own behalf.

A 4 December 1973 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that his health was fair.

On 11 January 1974 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 1 February 1974. He had 2 years and 20 days of service and 157 days of lost time.

On 26 July 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

A 22 June 1979 medical report from the Eastern Shore Hospital Center in Cambridge, Maryland, shows that the applicant was treated and hospitalized from February 1975 until his release in May 1975. His condition was diagnosed as schizophrenia, paranoid type; tonsillitis, treated and cured; and simple hyperopic astigmatism.

A 11 June 1979 medical report from the Wicomico County Health Department in Salisbury, Maryland, shows that the applicant was admitted to a hospital on 23 February 1974 and discharged on 4 March 1974. His condition was diagnosed as acute dissociative reaction and he was referred to a drug program. The medical director at that health department stated that the applicant was seen

---

at regular intervals for a period of time; however, his condition did deteriorate. He was committed to Eastern Shore Hospital Center and was discharged in May 1975 with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type. He stated that the last contact with the applicant was that he was incarcerated and was discharged from the drug program in June 1977.

On 11 February 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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.

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 applicant’s voluntary request for separation 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.

2. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The applicant was determined to be medically qualified for discharge. In view of the nature and frequency of the applicant’s offenses, the character of his discharge was not unduly harsh, but is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

5. 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.
6. 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 __ __KWL__ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068421
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020507
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.	360
3.
4.
5.
6.