RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            5 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100465


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Walter T. Morrison            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |

      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 that the undesirable discharge of her deceased
husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her husband should have been
honorably discharged because he became ill while in the Army.  She goes on
to state that he not only developed a heart problem but also a drug problem
as well, which made him do the things he did.  She also states that he
should have been sent to a rehabilitation facility for his heroin
withdrawal but instead was sent home sick.  She continues by stating that
she should have fought the issue a long time ago because he did not get the
proper discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the FSM's death certificate, physical
profile, clinical notes indicating chest pains, rapid heart beat and heroin
withdrawal, a charge sheet, a list of Criminal Investigation Division
exhibits, a third party statement attesting to the applicant's honesty and
a portion of a physical examination.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM was born on 22 September 1949 and was inducted in Los Angeles,
California, on 27 January 1970.  He was transferred to Fort Ord, California
to undergo his training.

2.  On 7 April 1970, while still in basic combat training (BCT), the FSM
was issued a permanent physical profile for rapid heart beat.  The issuing
physician indicated that he was medically qualified for active duty with
limitations and recommended that he be given a non-combat military
occupational specialty.

3.  He completed his BCT and remained at Fort Ord to complete his advanced
individual training (AIT) as a light vehicle driver.  He completed his AIT
and was transferred to Vietnam on 25 June 1970.  He was advanced to the pay
grade of E-3 on 26 June 1970.

4.  The FSM's records are somewhat incomplete and do not contain the facts
and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge.  However, his
records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214)
signed by the FSM and the applicant has provided a copy of a charge sheet
showing that the FSM was charged with wrongful possession of 2 ½ ounces of
heroin, nine marijuana cigarettes, and the wrongful use of marijuana.
5.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 2 September 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 7 days of total active service
of which 1 year, 2 months and 7 days were served in Vietnam.

6.  A review of the supporting documents submitted by the applicant
indicate that the FSM was confined at Long Binh Jail (LBJ), that he was
admitted to a half-way house for heroin withdrawal, that he was treated on
several occasions for rapid heart beat, that no known heart disease was
ever discovered or diagnosed, that he had a history of bronchitis and that
he admitted to smoking heroin two to three times a day.

7.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge (felony
conviction) may at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a
voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that
the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and
understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they
might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was at
that time and is still normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the FSM’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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a
trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on his records.

4.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been
considered by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to
warrant relief when compared to the seriousness the FSM's offenses and his
overall record of undistinguished service.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wtm___  __rtd___  __lmb___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                 Walter T. Morrison
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100465                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040508                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/09/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH 10 . . . . .               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |689/A70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]