APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and dumb when he went in and thought he knew everything.  Now he needs medical care and cannot get it because of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 December 1968 for 2 years.  

On 3 March 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to repair to his appointed place of duty.

On 1 May 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from      9 - 28 April 1968.

The court-martial charges and the discharge proceedings packet are not available.

On 21 May 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 9 June 1975, 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 8 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had 2,094 days of lost time.

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.

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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  Therefore, 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