MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            25 March 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020474

	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.	Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr.	Allen L. Raub		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told that his discharge was illegal and it has had an adverse affect on his life.

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

On 15 April 1966, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a light vehicle driver.

On 3 August 1966, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 August until 2 August 1966.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 28 May 1968, of being AWOL from 20 March until 8 May 1968.  His sentence consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted again by a special court-martial on 16 June 1969, of being AWOL from 22 January until 9 May 1969.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor and a reduction in pay grade.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 February 1970.  He was charged with being AWOL from 29 September 1969 until he surrendered to the FBI and returned to military control on 30 January 1970.  

On 13 February 1970, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 16 February 1970.  According, on 26 February 1970, the applicant was discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu to trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 28 days of total active service.  He had approximately 166 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There is no evidence of record to support the applicant’s contention that the type of discharge that he received is illegal.  He was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

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

___jev __  ___rwa __  __alr  ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020474	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/02/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.  261	123.010	
3.  		
4.		
5.		
6.