MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 November 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002076276

         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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to under honorable conditions (GD).

APPLICANT STATES: In a 21 April 2002 letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, that in effect he volunteered to serve in the Army in 1965 and he reenlisted in 1967. The applicant also admits he had problems and was AWOL, but that he paid the price for his misconduct.

The applicant contends that use of marijuana was common among enlisted men and some noncommissioned officers in Vietnam and that alcohol use was heavy as well. He also contends that he served well in Vietnam and was promoted.

The applicant stated that, on the day of his rotation after 13 months of service in Vietnam, about one ounce of marijuana was found in his luggage. He stated that, as a result his rotation was held up, that he was punished by court-martial and that he was sent to Long Binh Stockade to serve six months of confinement.

The applicant stated that, while in the stockade, he was offered a discharge as a way out of there. He stated that had he known what a discharge under other than honorable conditions would mean to his future, then he would never have accepted the discharge and would have served his sentence in confinement instead.

The applicant described that his discharge under other than honorable conditions has plagued him all of his life. The applicant contends that, although he struggled with drugs and alcohol after discharge from the Army, he has been a good citizen, is married and has raised a family. He asserted that he has been "clean and sober since 1986."

In concluding his letter, the applicant stated that his use of alcohol and drugs was a symptom of his disease and how different his service would have been if his unit leaders had been able to recognize this and send him to Alcoholics Anonymous. He also stated that he tried to be a good soldier, has always been a good citizen, has been gainfully employed, and is now a homeowner and grandfather. Further the applicant stated that he has been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease which might be connected with Agent Orange. Finally, he stated that he did not want his grandson and daughter to read in his papers the statement "Other Than Honorable." In support of his application, he also submitted three letters of reference attesting to his good character.






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

On 27 September 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64A10 (Light Vehicle Driver). On 2 January 1967, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 3 January 1967. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 17 July 1967, while enroute to assignment in Alaska the applicant was AWOL and subsequently convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent from his unit from 15 February to 1 March 1967 and from 15 May to 12 June 1967. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $68.00 pay per month for 6 months, confinement a hard labor (CHL) for 3 months, and a reduction to pay grade
E-1.

On 17 October 1968, while assigned in Vietnam, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his unit from 0130 hours to 0500 hours on
15 October 1968 and for disobeying a lawful order. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of
$45.00 pay, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 8 January 1969, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order not to fire a machine gun in the bunker and for consuming alcoholic beverages prior to sentinel duty therefore conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of a sentinel. He was sentenced to 7 days extra duty and restriction.

On 6 May 1969, the applicant was convicted by SPCM of possession of
21.6 grams of marijuana. He was sentenced to CHL for 6 months, a reduction to pay grade E-1, and a forfeiture of $96.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 19 May 1969, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant’s court-martial offenses, the counts of disobeying a lawful order, and for possession of marijuana.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 19 May 1969 and was diagnosed as having an aggressive chronic, moderate personality. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The applicant's separation physical examination is missing from his records.


On 22 May 1969, the applicant acknowledged notification of separation action for unfitness, he was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

On 7 June 1969, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 12 June
1969, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. He completed 1 year, 9 months and 9 days of creditable active service this enlistment period and had 241 days of lost time.

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.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge was commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2. The Board noted the applicant's character references submitted with his application attesting to his good character and his accomplishments since separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board the bases upon which to grant relief.

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

___AAO_ ___JPI __ ___RKS__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076276
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/14
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/06/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A51.00
ISSUES 1.	144.5000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.