MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:         6 January 1999                     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013985

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Member	
	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was young at the time of his enlistment but he and his “buddy” decided to enlist together for three years under the “buddy system” to become helicopter mechanics.  He states that while undergoing basic training he was told his “orders had been lost” and that his only option to “keep [his] status” was to re-enlist for two years, which he indicates he did.  The applicant notes that “as fate would have it” he and his buddy were separated and he was reassigned to Fort Ord, California with the 28th Army Band.  Not “knowing any thing about any musical instrument” he was subsequently assigned to a military police company.

Shortly after his assignment to the military police company, the applicant states he came down on orders for Vietnam and his request for 30 days of leave was denied.  He states, in effect, that he stayed home for 30 days anyway.  When he returned to military control he found out that he was going to be held at the Personnel Control Facility and not sent to Vietnam.  As a result he states he was “dishearten with [himself] and the Army” and went AWOL again.  The applicant states when he was apprehended and given the choice of being court-martialed or discharged he accepted the discharge “not knowing it was under dishonorable conditions.”

The applicant states that since his separation he has been a good citizen and in 1993 received his high school GED.  He “would like to have this done to have a better name.”

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

He enlisted on 10 December 1970.  His enlistment documents, which he authenticated, indicate he enlisted for a period of two years under a Regular Army enlistment option with no guarantee for any specific training or assignment. There is no indication he enlisted under the “buddy system.”

The applicant successfully completed basic training and was reassigned to Fort Ord, California for training as a 02J (musician) with the 28th Army Band.  The applicant reported to Fort Ord on 27 February 1971 and on 1 March 1971 was reassigned to the 54th Military Police Company for on the job training as a mechanic.

In May 1971 the applicant’s request for a hardship discharge based on his wife’s health and her inability to care for their 5-month-old child was denied.

In July 1971 orders were published assigning the applicant to the Overseas Replacement Detachment at Fort Lewis, Washington for further assignment to Vietnam.  His reporting date to Fort Lewis was established as 3 August 1971 with 15 days delay enroute authorized.

The applicant failed to report to Fort Lewis and was placed in an AWOL status.  He returned to military control on 24 August 1971 but departed AWOL again on 30 August 1971.  The applicant was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 
1 September 1971 and returned to military control on 10 November 1971.

When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

He was found medically qualified for separation with a physical profile 
of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.  On 9 December 1971 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  

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.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention there is no evidence that his enlistment contract was not fulfilled.  While he may have been initially assigned to Fort Ord for training with the band, the fact that he was reassigned to the military police company almost immediately after his arrival at Fort Ord tends to indicate that the initial assignment may have been an administrative mistake but certainly did not constitute a breach in any enlistment contract.

2.  In view of the fact that the applicant had previously requested a hardship discharge it is more likely that his AWOL resulted from the fact that he would be separated from his family if reassigned to Vietnam and not because he was disillusioned with the Army for failing to fulfill any enlistment contract.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with laws and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments are noted.  By themselves, however, they do not outweigh the seriousness of the offenses and do not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief.

5.  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.

6.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director