RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 16 March 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091840


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson
Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

---

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to change his undesirable discharge to a medical discharge or he requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

2. The applicant states that his medical records show he was not in his right frame of mind to be responsible for his actions at the time. He states that he has been treated at Brentwood Soldier's Hospital.

3. The applicant provides two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214); two DD Forms 4 (Enlistment Record – Armed Forces of the United States); and a copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record). He indicated that he provided records from the Wadsworth Veterans Affairs and the Brentwood Mental Health Clinic for the period 1982 to 1986; however, these documents are not available.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) (to change his administrative discharge to a physical disability separation) in Docket Number AC97-09787 on 17 June 1998.

2. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge is a new issue that will be considered by the Board.

3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 1967. He completed the required training and served in Alaska as a light vehicle driver. The applicant was honorably discharged on 7 December 1967 for immediate reenlistment.

4. The applicant reenlisted on 8 December 1967 for an assignment in Vietnam. He was assigned to Vietnam on 2 February 1968 and departed on 11 March 1968 for temporary duty in Thailand. He was promoted to the temporary grade of specialist four on 14 May 1968.

5. On 2 July 1968, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent from bed check. His punishment consisted of a reduction to private first class (to be suspended for a period of 30 days), and restriction to the limits of the Company Area, Mess Hall, Chapel, and Judge Advocate's Office for a period of 14 days.

6. He was assigned to Vietnam again on 7 October 1968; however, the date of his departure is unknown.

7. On 24 October 1969, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 September 1969 to 8 October 1969. He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $82.00 pay for one month and reduction to private E-1.

8. On 20 January 1970, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL on four occasions from 4 November 1969 to 19 January 1970, from 26 January 1970 to 17 February 1970, from 22 February 1970 to 28 April 1970, and from 4 May 1970 to 11 May 1970.

9. His DA Form 20 shows he was in pre-trial confinement from 18 May 1970 to 23 June 1970.

10. On 12 June 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Affairs (VA) if an undesirable discharge was issued. The applicant submitted statements in his own behalf. He stated that he was requesting discharge because he was facing court-martial charges for four counts of AWOL. He stated that he had been convicted of an earlier AWOL offense and that he had also been "busted" several times by civilian police for burglary. He stated that he would never go back to duty and that he could not take the Army any longer because of the harassment and low pay. He further stated that he should be released from the Army because of the drugs he used to include marijuana, opium, LSD, methadrine, barbiturates, benzidrene, and various other drugs. He stated that he would not quit the use of drugs while in the Army due to the strains and pressures of military life. He believed that he could quit if he was home with friends and family. He felt that his release would benefit himself and the Army.

11. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

12. The applicant was discharged on 3 February 1971. He had a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 14 days of active military service with 419 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

13. On 26 January 1971, the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 2 1.

14. On 5 October 1971, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

15. On 14 November 1973, the ABCMR administratively denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge based on insufficient evidence presented to indicate probable material error or injustice.

16. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was diagnosed with a mental condition prior to his discharge.

17. 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.

18. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. 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.

2. There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was diagnosed with a medical or mental condition prior to his discharge on 3 February 1971.

3. The evidence of record shows he received one Article 15, one summary court-martial, and was AWOL on numerous occasions. In addition, he admitted to heavy usage of illegal drugs. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory.

4. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

MDM_____ HOF_____ RTD_____ DENY APPLICATION

1. Regarding the applicant's request for a medical discharge, the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC97-09787, dated 17 June 1998.

2. Regarding the applicant's request for a general discharge, the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to upgrade the discharge of the individual concerned.




                  Mark D. Manning _______
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091840
SUFFIX
RECON	19980617
DATE BOARDED	20040316
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710203
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.