MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


      IN THE CASE OF:



      BOARD DATE:           15 April 2003
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076334

      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:

|     |Ms. Joann H. Langston               |    |Chairperson         |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar               |    |Member              |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado               |    |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 his record contains no errors, but he believes that
his discharge should be upgraded based on extenuating circumstances and the
documents that he has provided.  He states that he joined the military at
age 17 and he suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); that he is
not eligible for veterans benefits and he is being treated by a veterans
outreach program that he may not have access to in the near future.  The
applicant indicates in a separate statement written to the Board that he
does not believe that he was treated fairly after he returned from Vietnam;
that he achieved the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4, in just 8 months
due to hard work and education; that he used drugs; that alcohol and drug
use was common among soldiers in Vietnam; that he returned to the United
States and learned that he was addicted and that he was never told that
help was available; that he was absent without leave (AWOL) on four
separate occasions, but that he voluntarily returned and was never offered
assistance with his inability to cope with military life or with his drug
and alcohol problem; that he believes his situation was handled from a
standpoint of convenience rather than compassion, and he left the service
very angry and confused.  He performed his duties to the best of his
ability and his discharge does not reflect such.  He currently has a career
of 27 years; he has been clean and sober for 11 years; he works vigorously
with veterans to help them deal with substance abuse problems; and he would
greatly appreciate an upgrade of his discharge.  He submits in support of
his request a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States
Report of Transfer or Discharge); separation orders; nonjudicial punishment
proceedings; a copy of his Enlistment Qualification Record; a copy of his
enlistment contract; a letter from a readjustment therapist, dated
10 October 2001 and a statement from a psychiatrist, dated 15 October 2001
(both are from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Concord,
California).  The applicant also submits four character reference
statements that were written by a family member and friends.

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

On 30 November 1970, at age 17, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army
for 3 years with a declaration of parental consent signed by both of his
parents on 19 November 1970.  The applicant was trained in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 67A, General Aircraft Repairer.

On 12 June 1971, the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.  On 17 December
1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, was imposed against him for being absent from his place
of duty on that same date.  His punishment included reduction from pay
grade E-4 to pay grade E-3.
On 24 January 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go
to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 20 January 1972.
His punishment included forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month.

On 22 March 1972, the applicant returned to the United States and he went
into an AWOL status until 19 May 1972.  The applicant was also AWOL from
Fort Hood, Texas, from 9 June-16 June 1972, from 22 June-18 July 1972, and
from 28 July 1972 until he returned to military control at the Personnel
Control Facility (PCF), Fort Riley, Kansas on 27 April 1973.

On 29 April 1973, while assigned to the PCF, Fort Riley, the applicant
authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged
he had been advised that if he had been a drug experimenter, drug user, or
a drug addict, he could request amnesty and rehabilitation.  He also
acknowledged that he understood that, if he participated in the program, he
would not be subject to punitive action, including an administrative
discharge, solely for drug abuse.  The applicant annotated the statement
and authenticated it to indicate that he waived amnesty and rehabilitation
and stated that he did not wish to participate in the Fort Riley Drug
Rehabilitation Program.

On 30 April 1973, the applicant underwent a medical examination that
determined he was qualified for separation under the provisions of chapter
14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct.  On the same date, he
underwent a mental status evaluation and his behavior was found to be
normal; he was fully alert and fully oriented; his mood was level and his
thought process was clear; his thought content was normal and his memory
was good.  He was determined to suffer from no significant mental illness;
he was mentally responsible; able to distinguish right from wrong and able
to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.

On 31 May 1973, summary court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for the above four periods of AWOL.  On the same date, the
applicant 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 and he stated that he had not been forced or coerced to request a
discharge.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On the same date, the applicant's commander recommended that his request
for discharge for the good of the service be approved and that he be issued
a UD.  The commander cited the reasons for his recommendation were that he
believed any attempt at rehabilitation would be futile; that on 30 April
1973, he interviewed
the applicant and the applicant seemed to resent all authority; that the
applicant demonstrated a lack of self-control; and that he requested to be
confined so that he would not leave AWOL prior to being separated.  He
recommended that the applicant be separated with a UD.

On 5 June 1973, the intermediate commander recommended approval because the
applicant had demonstrated through his record that he was not going to
serve in the Army anymore.  The intermediate commander also cited that, on
4 June 1973, during an interview, "the applicant was very cocky and
demonstrated an 'I don’t care attitude'."  He believed that the applicant
had no rehabilitation potential and that he did not care about receiving a
UD.

On 3 July 1973, the separation authority approved separation with a UD
under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.

On 11 July 1973, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 6
months and 18 days of active military service.  He also had 384 days of
lost time due to being AWOL.

The letter from the DVA, dated 10 October 2001, states that the applicant
initially visited the center in March 1991; that he had been seen more than
seventy times and that the staff worked with him concerning marital/family
problems; substance abuse; and PTSD-related issues.  In April 1992, he
dropped out of treatment when he relocated to South Dakota.  In January
1993, he returned and dropped out again in December 1993, due to problems
with his estranged father.  In June 2000, he returned to the DVA for
treatment.  In 2001, during the timeframe that this letter was written, the
applicant was going through a divorce after 27 years of marriage and he was
concerned with PTSD and substance abuse even though he has been clean and
sober for 10 years.  He attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on occasion
and he holds a full time job as a mechanic for an automobile dealer.

The applicant has attended 46 group sessions this cycle; he is under the
doctor's care and he has been placed on medication.  He experiences
intrusive thought sleep disturbance; problems with authority figures;
anger; and difficulty with marital and family issues.  He has experienced
on-going PTSD symptoms since 1991.  The applicant contends that he was a
crew chief, door gunner, and mechanic on a helicopter; that he conducted
air assaults, fighter escorts, and air mobile assaults while serving with F
Troop, 8th Calvary (Blue Ghost), 196th Infantry Brigade; that he
participated in multiple assaults on the "VC" in sampans and in open
fields; that he dropped napalm on bunkers and set them off with
tracers; and that he was shot down a few times on Nighthawk helicopters.
The applicant states that he was told that he has no bar on benefits, but
he has not been able to access service at the "USDVA Northern California
Health Care System.  The applicant has also been working with the Kaiser
Permanente anger management groups.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board in 2002, which was
past that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

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 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 has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that
he was young, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards
to include age with parental consent.  Further, the Board found no evidence
that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who
successfully completed their military service obligation.

5.  There is no evidence available to indicate that the applicant was
suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder at the time of separation.  He
was determined to be both mentally and physically qualified for separation.


6.  Further, there is no evidence available that indicates the applicant
had drug or alcohol-related problems.  Even if so, prior to any separation
action being taken, he was offered amnesty and rehabilitation and he
refused help.

7.  The Board concluded that the applicant had many legitimate avenues
through which to obtain assistance with any problems that he may have
experienced without committing the AWOL offenses that led to the separation
action under review.

8.  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

__jhl___  __rtd___  __ym____  DENY APPLICATION



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



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2002076334                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                       |
|RECON                   |                                       |
|DATE BOARDED            |20030415                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730711                               |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 10                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                       |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.7000                               |
|2.                      |                                       |
|3.                      |                                       |
|4.                      |                                       |
|5.                      |                                       |
|6.                      |                                       |