MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 June 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020996

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That during the time of his AWOL he was under severe distress and encountered personal problems and post-Vietnam war issues.
He also states that he received four honorable discharges, numerous decorations and awards, and served two tours in Vietnam.  In support of his application he submits copies of his DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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

The applicant entered active duty on 29 March 1963 as a light weapons infantryman and continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.

Beginning in November 1964, the applicant began receiving numerous nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of violation of a special order, failure to pay his personal debt, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, being absent from his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer, violation of a general order, and for being AWOL
(9 days).

The applicant was found in contempt of court on 7 October 1969 and was confined by civil authorities from 16 October 1969 to 27 October 1969 (12 days).

The applicant departed AWOL on 18 May 1977 and remained AWOL until
29 October 1978 (530 days) and a charge sheet was prepared by his unit on 22 June 1977.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 2 November 1978 and was found qualified for separation.

Discharge processing documentation is not complete.  However, on 14 November 1978, the adjutant general (AG) at Fort Ord, California, prepared a memorandum (FO Form 4-310) requesting that the applicant be discharged for the good of the service.  The AG recommended through the staff judge advocate (SJA) and Headquarters Command commander to the Commanding General of Fort Ord that he act upon the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The memorandum also shows that the applicant was AWOL from 18 May 1977 to 30 October 1978 and was apprehended by civil authorities.

This memorandum further shows that the unit commander, the Personnel Control Facility commander, and the Headquarters Command commander 

recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant’s records contain a DD Form 214 with a separation date of 7 December 1978 and issuance of an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 14 years, 
2 months, and 13 days creditable service and a total of 551 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 the 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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he was under severe distress and encountered personal problems and post-Vietnam war issues;
however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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____  CGM____  CLG_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020996	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990624	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19781207	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.