MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           11 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019361

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he successfully completed basic training and was almost finished with advanced individual training when he was informed of his mother’s ill health and financial problems.  He contends that he applied for a compassionate release but was denied, that other family members were unable to help support his mother so he went AWOL to take care of her.  He apologized for his actions and stated that had it not been for the crisis at home he would have been a good soldier.  He goes on to state that he was a young man faced with a moral dilemma.  This decision has affected him throughout his entire life (employment and VA benefits).  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, a doctor’s certification of his mother’s ill health and letters from neighbors, friends and siblings.  

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

He enlisted on 25 March 1969 for a period of 3 years.  While in basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 21 May 1969 for being AWOL from 18 May 1969 until 19 May 1969. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.

While in advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, he was convicted by summary court-martial on 24 June 1969 of being AWOL from
5 June 1969 until 11 June 1969 and failing to obey a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer (SCO).  His punishment consisted of 60 days of restriction. The convening authority approved the sentence on 1 July 1969.

On 4 November 1969, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 4 August 1969 until 31 October 1969.  He received his third NJP on 
1 December 1969 for being disrespectful towards his superior noncommissioned officer and disobeying a lawful command from his SCO.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 30 days of restriction.     

On 1 June 1970 he went AWOL and remained away until he returned to military control on 22 May 1972.

On 5 June 1972 charges were preferred against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL period.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 13 June 1972, 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 indicated in his request that he understood that he could receive an undesirable discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 14 August 1972 the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
25 August 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 5 months, and 10 days of total active service and had 721 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 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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.   
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. 

2.  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.

3.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.  However, his extensive absence for which court-martial charges had been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished to warrant relief.

4.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

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

___cla__  ___vbc__  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019361	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990311	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720825	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200  CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110.00		
2.144		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.