PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:  17 February 1999                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:                              AC98-11243
                                                                         AR1999016063

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Charles H. Lounderman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and his actions were wrong, but he feels that he was also treated wrong.  He also stated that he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and those memories are still with him.  He is proud to be an American and he wants to join the Reserves or the National Guard.

COUNSEL STATES:  Counsel provided no additional information in support of the applicant's case.

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

On 28 January 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in Military Occupational Specialty 76P (Stock Control and Accounting Specialist).  The applicant served in the RVN from 1 August 1971 through 24 June 1972.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

The applicant ‘s conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent from January 
1971 through April 1972.  On 8 May 1972, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for departing his duty section absent without permission.  On 11 May 1972, he accepted a second NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  His punishments included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended) and later vacated for some unknown reason, forfeiture of pay restriction and extra duty.  Both NJP’s were imposed while serving in the RVN.

On 1 August 1972, the applicant was assigned to Fort McClellan, Alabama.  On 11 December 1972, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 October through 20 November 1972.  His punishment included reduction form pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of pay.

The applicant continuously departed Fort McClellan, Alabama AWOL:  from 
26 February – 3 April 1973, from 9 April – 14 May 1973, from 24 May – 23 July 1973, and from 23 August – 28 February 1974.  He remained in an AWOL status 34 days past his expiration term of service (ETS).

The charge sheet is incomplete, however, other evidence of record indicates, court-martial charges were preferred for the numerous periods of AWOL between February 1973 and February 1974.

On 18 March 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was advised of his rights and that the offenses for which he was being charged could lead to a UD.  He stated that he understood the ramifications of a UD, and he submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he had a family to support, and his pay was messed up.  He also stated that he had a job in civilian life that would allow him to provide for his family.  Both the applicant’s unit commander and intermediate commander recommended separation with a UD.  On 3 April 1974, competent authority approved the applicant’s request. 

On 11 April 1974, he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 6 days of active military service and he had 341 days lost time. 

The record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 29 March 1979.

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 a UD.

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.  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.

2.  The Board took into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young.  However, the Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 

3.  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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

5.  The applicant's desire to serve in the Reserves or National Guard is commendable.  However, this fact does not provide a basis to upgrade a discharge.  Each Reserve component establishes its own entrance criteria.  The applicant should work with local recruiters on ascertaining his eligibility for continued military service.

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:

CHL_____  ________  ________  GRANT

FNE_____  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JS______  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11243/AR1999-016063	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990217	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740411	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Request honorable discharge.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.