MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      .

	BOARD DATE:           4 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020608

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his ability to serve was impaired by the death of his parents and his need to be at home after their deaths.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the petitioner had personal and family problems that diminished his ability to serve and that these problems involved the death of his parents and his need to be at home following their death.

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

On 15 January 1969 the applicant was inducted in the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  He was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for basic combat training (BCT).  On 24 February 1969 the applicant departed BCT in an AWOL status.  On 28 March 1969 the applicant was apprehended and confined by civilian authorities.  On 7 May 1969 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial for this 32-day period of AWOL.  His sentenced consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended) and a forfeiture of $68.00 per month for 6 months.  On 16 May 1969 the applicant was recycled in BCT.  He successfully completed BCT at Fort Campbell and was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook), and was assigned to Fort Jackson for his first permanent duty station.

On 16 September 1969 the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status from Fort Jackson.  On 15 October 1969 he was dropped from the rolls (DFR).  On 24 April 1970 civilian authority apprehended the applicant and on 28 April 1970 returned him to military control.  He was charged with the aforementioned period of AWOL.  On 26 May 1970 the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  

On 29 May 1970 court-martial charges were preferred with a recommendation for a bad conduct discharge.  On 2 June 1970 the applicant’s previous suspended confinement was vacated.  On 23 June 1970 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial for this 220-day period of AWOL.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months, a forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months, and a reduction in rank to private/E-1.  He was confined at the Post Stockade Fort McPherson, Georgia.  

On 9 June 1970 the unit and intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge under chapter 10 be disapproved. On 24 June 1970 the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 was disapproved.  

On 26 June 1970 the applicant was transferred to the Correctional Holding Detachment at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  On 12 August 1970 the applicant was transferred to the US Army Correctional Training Facility at Fort Riley, Kansas.  On 7 October 1970 the applicant was promoted to private/E-2 and transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  

On 19 October 1970 the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status.  On 17 November 1970 he was dropped from the rolls and remained AWOL until 12 May 1973.

On 29 May 1973 the applicant, after consulting with counsel, voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  This request was made after counsel advised the applicant of the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment, and the possible effects of a UOHC discharge.  The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs, and that he may be deprived of veteran benefits under state law.

On 12 June 1973 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UOHC and a reduction in grade to the rank of private/E-1.  Accordingly, on 15 June 1973 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months of active military service and accruing 1354 days of lost time.

On 29 May 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention, in effect, that the death of his parents and his need to be at home impaired his ability to serve, neither did he provide any independent corroborating evidence in support of his contention.  The Board concluded the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct that led to the separation action under review.  

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the quality of the applicant’s overall record of military service. 

3.  The applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.

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

__EB____  __AAO__  __HOF__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020608	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991104	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730615	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.A9307		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.