MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            14 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998014350

	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:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was informed at the time of his discharge that he would be receiving a general discharge; however, he has since discovered that he received an undesirable discharge.  He further states that his records were lost the entire time he was in the service and that he was never properly paid.

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

The applicant enlisted in New Orleans, Louisiana on 10 December 1969 for a period of 3 years and training in mechanical maintenance.  He was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana to undergo his training.

He successfully completed his basic training and was transferred to another unit at Fort Polk on 9 March 1970 to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).  However, on 6 April 1970 he went AWOL and remained absent until 15 April 1970.

On 22 April 1970 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 6 April to 14 April 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of $65.00.  The convening authority approved the findings and sentence but suspended the portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for 30 days.  The applicant again went AWOL from 17 May 1970 to 11 June 1970, 3 August 1970 to 2 September 1970, 25 January 1971 to 21 March 1971 and 13 April 1971 to 20 May 1971.  The applicant was returned to military control and charges were preferred against him for the aforementioned AWOL offenses.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 15 July 1971, 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 served 1 year, 2 months, and 7 days of total active service and had in excess of 150 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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 condition of such a request is that the individual must state that they have been counseled and that they understand the consequences of their request and the effect that a discharge under other than honorable conditions may have on their benefits as well as the influence it may have in civilian life.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Accordingly, 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.

4.  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 charges against him. 

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

__js ____  ___ew___  ___sac__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014350	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/07/15	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/A70.00 Disch for good of svc	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.