MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            14 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12452
                                              AR1999015971

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his service he had fallen in love with a married women with a child who was separated from her husband and who was not receiving enough support from her husband to live on.  He further states that because he did not make enough money to support her with his Army pay and because he wanted to help her, he went AWOL and got a job.  He goes on to state that he did not believe that anyone would help him with his problem and all he could think about was getting out of the Army and being with the woman he loved.  He continues by stating that he now knows that he went about solving his problems in the wrong way and probably could have served his time with no trouble, but that he was young and unaware of how things in the military were done.  He also states that he married the woman, is still married, and has had three children.  In addition, he has worked at the same company (General Electric) for over 20 years and believes that his longevity with his company and his dedication to his family shows that he has corrected his life and that he is worthy of having his discharge upgraded. 

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

The applicant was inducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 17 October 1972.  At the time he was inducted he was working for General Electric.  He successfully completed his basic training at Fort Dix and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for advanced individual training (AIT) on 8 January 1973.  

On 22 January 1973 he went AWOL and remained absent until 19 February 1973.  Before punishment could be imposed he again went AWOL from 26 February until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix on 8 March 1973.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant at Fort Dix on 20 March 1973 for the aforementioned AWOL offenses and his punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $150.00.

The applicant was placed in an AIT program at Fort Dix and on 12 June 1973, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to guard duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty for 5 days.

On 20 June 1973 NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 June to 19 June 1973.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant again went AWOL from 16 July to 30 July 1973, from 4 September to 15 November 1973, and from 3 December 1973 until he surrendered to military authorities on 17 January 1974.  Charges were preferred against him on 18 January 1974.

On 25 January 1974, 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.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 27 February 1974 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 14 March 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 11 months and 11 days of total active service and had 168 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 24 May 1979 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He cited essentially the same reasons for upgrade to that board that he has cited to this board.  The ADRB determined that the applicant had been properly discharged and opined that his reasons for going AWOL were not sufficient to mitigate relief.  The ADRB denied his application on 5 June 1980.

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.  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.  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.

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

___rvo___  __slp ___  __kan___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12452/AR1999015971	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/03/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.7100	(A71.00)	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.