PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12837
				   AR1998013798

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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.

2.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.

3.  The applicant states he was doing well in the Army until his father died.  His mother needed him at home.  He tried to get a hardship discharge but it was denied.  He felt he had no choice but to accept an undesirable discharge.

4.	The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 12 July 1952.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 1970.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 16B (Hercules Missile Crewman).  His conduct and efficiency ratings had been “excellent.”

5.  On 12 January 1971, the applicant submitted a request for a hardship discharge.  His father had died and his mother was in poor health.  His older sister had a job but did not make much money; his younger sister and brother were still in school.  He had a job lined up and he could be home to help his mother raise the family.  His application was disapproved but he was given a compassionate reassignment to a unit about 50 miles away from his home.

6.	 On 24 March 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 February – 1 March 1971.

7.	The applicant completed a separation physical examination on 25 May 1972 and was found qualified for separation.

8.	On 26 May 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of AWOL for the periods 5 April – 2 September 1971 and 26 September 1971 – 21 May 1972.  The applicant had been apprehended for AWOL at his mother’s home.

9.	On 9 June 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation   635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 13 July 1972, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

11.  On 13 July 1972, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 9 months and 19 days of creditable active service and had 426 days of lost time.

12.	 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. 

13.  On 12 August 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  From a purely regulatory standpoint, the applicant’s discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.

2.	The Board notes that the applicant enlisted shortly after reaching his 18th birthday and had conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” while in basic training and AIT.  After his father died, he attempted to work through proper channels by applying for a hardship discharge.  When his request was disapproved, he was granted a compassionate reassignment (although it is not clear to the Board how the approval authority thought being assigned 50 miles from home would help the applicant help his mother raise her family).  

3.  While the conduct which led to the applicant’s separation cannot be condoned, the Board notes that when he was apprehended he was at his mother's home.

4.  Although the applicant failed to apply to this board within the time required, it would nonetheless be fair and compassionate at this point in time to upgrade the applicant’s discharge UOTHC to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was given a general discharge from the Army on 13 July 1972, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.

2.  That the individual concerned be issued a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 13 July 1972, denoting a general discharge in lieu of the discharge UOTHC now held by him.

3.  That the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  __JEV___  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JHK___  ________  __MKP___  DENY APPLICATION

		James E. Vick
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12837/AR1998013798	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720713	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.