MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            6 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12617
	AR1998013111

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  That his undesirable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That while he in Georgia, he was hospitalized and he was told by his doctor that he was being medically discharged with a 20 percent disability rating.  He further states that he believes that the actions taken by the Army to be unfair and unjust because he believed his doctor (an officer) and now he is being denied VA benefits.

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

On 20 June 1966, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a auto mechanics helper and on 24 February 1966, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3.  He was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment after he completed 10 months and 19 days of total active service.  On 9 May 1967, he reenlisted in the Army for 4 years.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 29 September 1967, for being derelict in his performance of duty, for being absent from his unit and for violating a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, restriction and extra duty.

On 25 November 1967, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. 

The available records show that the applicant went AWOL on 18 December 1967 and he remained absent until he returned to military control and was hospitalized on 14 February 1968.  On 16 April 1968, while he was hospitalized, he went AWOL again and he remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities, returned to military control and placed in pre-trial confinement on 12 July 1975.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are unavailable.  However, the available record shows that on 22 July 1975, he was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  On 10 September 1975, he was discharge 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 3 years and 10 months of total active service.  He had 1168 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

A review of the records fails to show that the applicant was ever being processed for discharge through medical channels.

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 has failed to submit any evidence nor is there any evidence of record to support his contention that he was told by a doctor that he was being processed for discharge through medical channels.  He had 1168 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement and the records clearly show that he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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

___cs___  ___fe____  ___ewl__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12617/AR1998013111	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/05/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/09/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.