MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            14 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12464
				   AR1998012610

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That: (1) clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge; (2) his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good; (3) he received awards and decorations to include a Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) and a Vietnam Campaign Medal; (4) he had combat service; (5) he has an honorable discharge, he reenlisted, he started having problems after Vietnam and he is currently being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at the Dayton Veterans Affairs; (6) his records and promotions reflect he was a good service member; (7) he has been a good citizen since discharge; (8) his record of NJP’s indicate only isolated or minor offenses; (9) he had trouble adjusting to stateside duty when he returned from Vietnam; and (10) he applied for a compassionate reassignment but was denied or told to forget it.  In support of his application, he submits a police report and
11 character reference letters.

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

The applicant enlisted on 22 August 1968, successfully completed his basic and advanced individual training as a light weapons infantryman and was transferred to Vietnam on 19 January 1969.  He was honorably discharged in the grade of
E-3 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 5 July 1969.  He reenlisted the following day for a period of 3 years, returned to the United States on 18 January 1970 and was awarded the CIB and the VSM.

On 12 January 1972 charges were preferred against the applicant for seven specifications of being AWOL (12 March 1970 to 24 April 1970; 6 May 1970 to
6 May 1970; 22 May 1970 to 1 June 1970; 30 June 1970 to 19 October 1970;
25 November 1970 to 2 March 1971; 14 April 1971 to 20 May 1971; and 20 June 1971 to 5 January 1972) and a violation of a condition of minimum custody (leaving assigned area without authority).

On 1 February 1972 the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf whereas he stated his assignments from his prior service, trouble with reenlistment and promotions, wife had child that wasn’t his, and his assignment to Fort Hood, Texas, where he was informed there was nothing that could be done about his reenlistment, so he went AWOL.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 9 February 1972 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 
18 February 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 2 years, 1 month and 13 days of total active service and had 503 days of lost time due to AWOL. 

On 26 December 1980 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended that he reenlisted with the understanding he would go into marine maintenance upon DEROS; he states he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where no one seemed to care about his reenlistment option so he went AWOL.  The ADRB denied his appeal on 5 February 1982.

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.  However, his multiple and extensive absences for which court-martial charges had been preferred against him is too serious, and his service during his last enlistment was too undistinguished, to warrant relief.

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

___rvo __  ___slp __  __kan ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12464/AR1998012610	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/02/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A94.07		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.