MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           14 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012062

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was found guilty when an officer found a joint of marijuana in his pocket.  He states that he had no knowledge of the marijuana being in his pocket and he believes that someone else placed it there in an attempt to rid themselves of the object.  He further states that he was told that he could take a discharge or be tried by court-martial and risk being sent to prison.

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

On 16 January 1972, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a light weapons infantryman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 16 May 1973.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 12 November 1973, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 26 October and 30 October 1973.  His punishment consisted of 30 days in correctional custody, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 26 February 1974, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 21 February and 22 February 1974.  His punishment consisted of 30 days of correctional custody and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant had NJP imposed against him on 31 May 1974, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The record shows that he was AWOL from 11 June until 12 June 1974.  However, the record is void of any punishment being imposed against him.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL.  He was AWOL from 1 July 1974 until he returned to military control on 21 October 1974.

On 8 November 1974, he was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Along with his request for discharge he submitted a statement in his own behalf indicating that he was submitting his request for discharge was because he had received eight NJPs for failure to repair.  He stated that he detested being told to do things that made no 

sense and when told to do things that he believed to be of that nature, he rebelled.  He further stated that the liked to get high to do things that made him feel better inside.  He went on to state the only thing being in the Army had done for him was to support his drug use until it became a part of his life.  He concluded by stating that when he was not high all he could think about was home or how to go about being released from the service.

A review of the available records shows that all attempts to rehabilitate him had failed.

On 19 November 1974, the request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly, on 17 December 1974, he was discharged 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 completed 1 year, 7 months and 10 days of total active service and he had 112 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

On 12 September 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The record clearly shows that he submitted a request for 
discharge after being charged with being AWOL.  There is no evidence that his discharge was related to drug possession.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement

5.  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

___js____  ___ew__  __sac ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012062	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1947/12/17	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100/A71.00/Triable by CM: AWOL	
2.  713	144.7110/A71.10/Absent from appointed place	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.