MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12833
                                              AR1998012311

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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:  In effect, that he joined the Army with the expectation of receiving his high school GED and having a job.  He goes on to state that between going on sick call, performing KP, and barracks duty, he missed crucial aspects of his training and failed his test; however, he was pushed through anyways.  He further states he complained through his chain of command that he could not perform his duties and his complaints were ignored.  He continues by stating that he received orders for Europe and was scared of being trapped there so he panicked and went AWOL.  He contends that he received bad advice from his defense counsel and decided to take the easiest way out.  He also states that during the last weeks of his confinement he had a change of mind and considered withdrawing his plea for an undesirable discharge, but it was too late. In support of his application he submits a copy of his GED results showing that he failed the test on 10 January 1972, a copy of his promotion order, and a letter of commendation for his performance on a detail.

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

The applicant enlisted on 28 January 1972 for a period of 3 years and training as an administrative specialist.  He successfully completed his basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  He also received an accelerated advancement to the pay grade of E-2 upon graduation from basic training.

He remained at Fort Dix to complete his advanced individual training as a clerk typist and upon completion on 25 May 1972, he received orders transferring him to Germany with a report date to the overseas replacement company on 16 June 1972.  The applicant failed to report as directed and remained AWOL until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 3 July 1972.  He was returned to military control at Fort Meade, Maryland where charges were preferred against him.  He was interviewed by the commander and indicated that he did not want to consult with counsel, that he did not want to answer questions, and that he did not desire to make a statement.

On 10 July 1972 he again went AWOL and remained absent until he was again returned to military control.  The applicant was interviewed again and indicated that he hated the Army and that he would continue to go AWOL if he were not discharged.  Charges were again preferred against the applicant on 15 August 1972.

On 17 August 1972, 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.  In his request he acknowledged that he had been fully advised by counsel and that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request and that he had been advised of the implications attached to his request.  He also indicated that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge and that he understood that he could be deprived of all Army benefits as well as benefits administered by the VA.

The applicant’s counsel submitted a statement in behalf of the applicant which indicated that the applicant had personal problems and no longer felt that he could function effectively in the service, that he wanted out of the Army, and that if he were returned to duty he would continue to go AWOL.

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 August 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 5 months and 12 days of total active service and had 51 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 5 March 1975 the applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to a General discharge.  He contended at that time that he had been convinced by his recruiter that he could cope with his problems in the Army and that he found that being in the Army only compounded his problems.  He further contended that when confronted with the easier and fastest way out of the Army he signed the request for discharge without having knowledge of what they meant.  The ADRB determined that he had been properly discharged and denied his request on 11 July 1975.

On 10 February 1978 the ADRB again reviewed the applicant’s discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) based on a 4 October 1977 request from the applicant.  The ADRB voted unanimously to again deny his request.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.

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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  The applicant clearly indicated that he understood the implications attached to a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  Additionally, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses for which he was charged and his otherwise undistinguished record of service. 

4.  Given the short period of time he served and the undistinguished manner in which he served, there is insufficient basis to warrant relief in his case.

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

__jhl ____  __vbc___  ___aao__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12833/AR1998012311	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978/08/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CHAP 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A70.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.