MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 1999   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998012584

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwrite		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  Reinstatement to active duty to complete his term of service.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his age, immaturity and emotional difficulties impaired his ability to serve.  He contends that his emotional difficulties were discovered via psychotherapy after his discharge.  He also contends that he is now physically and mentally able to complete his military service.  In support of his application, the applicant indicates that a medical report from St. Joseph’s Medical Center will be forwarded.  However, to date the report has not been submitted.   

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

At age 17, with parental consent, he enlisted on 10 April 1970 for a period of
3 years.  While in basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, the applicant went AWOL from 24 April 1970 to 1 July 1970.  He went AWOL again on 3 August 1970 until 6 October 1970.

The applicant was convicted by special court-martial on 20 November 1970 for the two aforementioned AWOL’s.  His punishment consisted of confinement for
4 months and forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 4 months.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 7 December 1970.
 
On 29 December 1970 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to forfeiture of pay was suspended until 10 February 1971.  On 2 February 1971 the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor and forfeitures were remitted.

On 3 March 1971 the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until he returned to military control on 10 March 1972.

The applicant went AWOL again on 14 March 1972.  While in an AWOL status, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 3 March 1971 to 10 March 1972.  He returned to military control on 14 December 1972.

On 18 December 1972 charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of being AWOL (from 3 March 1971 to 10 March 1972; and from 14 March 1972 to 14 December 1972).  A medical examination was conducted which cleared him for separation.

On 2 January 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could receive an undesirable discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 14 January 1973 the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
13 February 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 months and 26 days of total active service and had 954 days lost due to confinement and AWOL.

On 21 February 1974 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He contended that feelings of anxiety, depression and the pressures of military life caused him to go AWOL.  He stated that his emotional problem stemmed from his childhood, his desire to get out of jail and his fear of the possible consequences of a bad conduct discharge made the undesirable discharge the fastest way out.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal on 14 June 1974. 

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 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.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

3.  The extensive absences (totaling 954 days) for which court-martial charges had been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, to warrant relief.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement in the Army.   
 
4.  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

____inw_  ___vbc__  ___cjs_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12408/AR1998012584	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110.030		
2.  113.000		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.