RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000808


      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             |
|     |                                  |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |                                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |                                  |     |Member               |
|     |                                  |     |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, in effect, that his under other than honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his problems started during his
last tour of service in Vietnam, which led to his abuse of alcohol.

3.  The applicant provides a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated
7 December 2004; a copy of DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Form) for the
period 20 February 1961 through 8 May 1969; a copy of Standard Form
89 (Report of Medical History), dated 13 February 1961; a copy of DD Form
735 (Health Record – Abstract of Service); a copy of Standard Form 88
(Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 June 1974; a copy of Headquarters,
United States Army, Europe and Seventh Army Special Orders Number 172,
dated 21 June 1974; and five pages of information about Vietnam from the
internet, in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 June 1974, the date of his separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 5 November 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's military records show that he entered active duty on
20 February 1961 and served until he was honorably discharged on 8 May
1969. On 17 May 1971, he reenlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years and
was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76P40 (Account and Stock
Control).



4.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted
Qualification Record) covering his period of service from 17 May 1971
through 25 June 1974.  This record shows he served in Vietnam twice from
November 1965 through December 1966 and May 1967 through May 1968.  His
records also show he served three assignments in Germany from September
1962 through February 1965, January 1967 through April 1967, and 28 October
1972 through 23 October 1974.

5.  On 24 April 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place
of duty on 20 April 1973.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of
$100.00 per month for one month.

6.  The applicant's service records contain several pages of Standard Form
600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) for the period 30 March 1973
through 31 January 1974.  The following entries were annotated:

      a.  3 May 1973 - applicant is an alcoholic and wants help;


      b.  3 May 1973 - applicant referred from emergency room for EOTH
(ethyl alcohol) problem;


      c.  6 May 1973 - applicant had been drinking and was advised to go to
the Alcohol Center when he was sober;


      d.  8 May 1973 - applicant admitted to detox;


      e.  9 May 1973 through 21 June 1973 - group therapy


      f.  14 May 1973 - Antabuse (a drug used in the treatment of
alcoholism) started and was discharged;


      g.  21 August 1973 - applicant no longer goes to group therapy and no
contact in nearly two months;


      h.  17 September 1973 - applicant returned and wants Antabuse, feels
he can not restart by himself.  Recommendation: 3 - 5 day detox; and on


      i.  31 January 1974 -  applicant had three admissions to detox for
ETOH and now he is in an outpatient ETOH program.


7.  The applicant's service records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet),
dated 20 March 1974, which shows he was charged with failure to go to his
place of duty on 1 March 1974 and on 14 March 1974; for being disrespectful
towards a commissioned officer on 14 March 1974; for disobeying two lawful
orders from a commissioned officer on 14 March 1974; for striking a
commissioned officer on 14 March 1974; for disobeying a lawful order from a
commissioned officer on 17 March 1974; for dereliction of duty on
14 February 1974; for affixing his USAREUR license plates on another
vehicle on 17 March 1974; for operating a military vehicle without a valid
Military Operator's license on 17 March 1974; for signing an official
Witness Statement (DA Form 2823), dated 7 March 1974, which was false; and
for wrongfully appropriating property of the United States Army (M151A1 1/4
ton vehicle) on 17 March 1974.

8.  The applicant's service records also contain an undated DD Form 458,
which shows he was charged for failure to the go to his appointed place of
duty on 1 April 1974 and on 5 April 1974, for stealing a television set on
23 February 1974, and for breaking restriction on 29 March 1974 and on 12
April 1974.

9.  On 24 April 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial that
provided for a punitive discharge, the effects of a request for discharge
for the good of the service and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent
to this counseling, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provision
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in
lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, the
applicant indicated that he had not been coerced into requesting discharge
and had been advised of the implications that were attached to the request.
 He further acknowledged that he could be discharged under other than
honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
 He also stated that he understood that as a result of receiving such a
discharge, he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could
be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and
benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

10.  On 20 May 1974, the applicant's commander recommended that the
applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a
general discharge.




11.  The applicant's service records contain Standard Form 93 (Report of
Medical History), dated 5 June 1974, wherein the applicant annotated that
he was in good health and not taking any medications at that time.  This
form also contains entries that the applicant has lost 30 pounds within the
last year because of no ETOH intake and takes Antabuse.  The applicant
authenticated this form in his own hand.

12.  Item 76 (Physical Profile) of the applicant's Standard Form 88 (Report
of Medical Examination), dated 5 June 1974, shows the numeral "1" in all
areas of his physical profile which indicated that he possessed a high
level of medical fitness and was determined qualified for separation.  A
medical corps officer authenticated this document.

13.  Headquarters, 1st Armored Division memorandum, dated 13 June 1974,
show the Judge Advocate had no legal objections to approved of the
applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation
635-200 with award of an undesirable discharge.

14.  On 13 June 1974, the major general in command of the 1st Armored
Division approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that
he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

15.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 25 June
1974, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for
the good of the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
He had served 11 years, 3 months and 29 days of total active service.

16.  The applicant submitted a 2-page statement which essentially states:

      a.  that after Vietnam, alcohol and drugs were used to help relieve
the mental and stress problems;

      b.  that the stress was caused by the harsh training conditions;

      c.  that he had to see a psychiatrist due to the drug and alcohol
problems; and

      d.  that he feels he should have received better medical treatment
for his alcohol problems which started while on active duty due to the
stress and mental conditions.

17.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

18.  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.

19.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile
serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of
an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel
officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is
capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four
numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of
functional capacity in six factors (PULHES):
P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities,
H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1"
under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a
high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any
military assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an
individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires
certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is
physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should
receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.
Numerical designator "4" indicates that an individual has one or more
medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of
military duty must be drastically limited.  The numerical designator "4"
does not necessarily mean that the individual is unfit because of physical
disability as defined in Army Regulation 635-40.

20. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

21.  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 requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded so he
is eligible for any benefits.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with
several offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with
a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant
voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

3.  Evidence shows the applicant’s administrative separation was
accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no
indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant also contends that he should have received better medical
treatment for his alcoholism and his mental condition.

5.  Contrary to the applicant's contentions, evidence shows the applicant
was admitted for detoxification on three separate occasions for his
alcoholism.  Evidence also shows at the time of his separation, the
applicant was found mentally and physically fit for separation with
indication that he was sober for almost a year and taking Antabuse.

6.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, these factors do
not provide a sufficient basis for upgrade of his discharge.  Also, the
ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the
purpose of making the applicant eligible for veteran or other benefits.

7.  After a review of the applicant’s record of service, it is evident that
his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to
an honorable discharge.

8.  The period of service under consideration includes a nonjudicial
punishment, several court-martial charges against the applicant which
resulted in his request for discharge and separation with an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  Therefore, this period of service is unsatisfactory
and does not merit a general discharge.

9.  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.

10.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 June 1974; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 24 June 1977.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ck____  __ena ___  ___js ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.







2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____John N. Slone _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000808                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/15                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1974/06/25                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, para 10-1                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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