MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            14 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12529
                                              AR1999016139

	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 an honorable discharge based on hardship reasons.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge, he was experiencing hardships with his family and was under the impression that he was being discharged for hardship reasons.  He further states that his report of separation indicates that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions; however, on page two of his separation orders, it indicates that he was being honorably discharged for hardship reasons.  He goes on to state that he desires that the orders be honored and that his discharge be upgraded to honorable for reasons of hardship.  He continues by stating that if he were to do it all over again, he would do it differently and he submits statements of support for the Board to consider in his case as well as a copy of his discharge orders.  

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

The applicant enlisted in Salisbury, Maryland on 30 June 1971 for a period of 2 years and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey for the purpose of attending basic training.

While attending basic training he went AWOL on 8 August 1971 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Salisbury on 15 September 1971.  He was returned to military control at Fort George Meade, Maryland where he was interviewed and charges were preferred against him.  During his interview he indicated that he had several previous civil convictions that he had not disclosed and that he wanted to be discharged from the service.

The applicant again went AWOL on 17 September 1971 and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 17 October 1971.  He was again interviewed and refused to return to duty.  He indicated that he would go AWOL again if he were not discharged.  The applicant was placed in confinement and charges were again preferred against him. 

On 8 November 1971, while still in confinement pending trial by court-martial, the applicant, along with two other inmates, escaped from confinement.  The record is silent in regards to how long it took to apprehend the applicant; however, the records show that on the following day, 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 not been subjected to any coercion with respect to his request and that he understood the implications associated with his request and the discharge he could receive.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 18 November 1971 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 December 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 3 months of total active service and had 71 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

At the time of his discharge his report of separation (DD Form 214) indicated that he would receive a discharge certificate of under other than honorable conditions (DD Form 258A).  His orders also indicated that he would receive a DD Form 258A.  The orders discharging the applicant also contain a discharge pertaining to another service member who was honorably discharged for hardship reasons. The type of discharge issued to this individual “Gressinger” is indicated on page 2 of the discharge order.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

A review of the applicant’s records failed to show that the applicant ever applied for a hardship discharge or that he made it known to officials at the time that he was experiencing any hardships.

The supporting documents submitted by the applicant consists of letters from third parties who indicate that they have known the applicant for many years, that he came from a large family of watermen who made their living working on boats, that the applicant’s presence was necessary to support the family, that he came from a family that suffered from alcohol abuse, and that the applicant had a history of alcohol abuse until approximately 3 years ago.  The statements applaud the applicant as a hard worker and a contributing member of the community.

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’s orders clearly indicate that he was to be issued 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.  The supporting statements submitted by the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, 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

__rvo ___  __slp____  ___kan__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12529/AR1999016139	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/12/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by cm	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  144.7000	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.