MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            25 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022512

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 be upgraded.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that upon his discharge from the Army, he was promised his undesirable discharge would be upgraded in six months.  To date, it has not been upgraded. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 19 October 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He served in Vietnam as a senior crawler tractor operator, advanced to pay grade E-5 and was honorably discharged on 20 July 1969 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 21 July 1969 for a period of 6 years.

On 12 September 1970 the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until he returned to military control on 10 February 1971.  He went AWOL again on
23 May 1971 until 12 August 1971.  

On 6 October 1971 he commenced another AWOL period. 

The applicant’s personnel records indicate that he was convicted of Grand Larceny by a civilian court and was held in civilian confinement from October 1971 until May 1975.  

On 6 August 1975 the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities and turned over to military control.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for the three aforementioned AWOL periods on 22 August 1975.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.  

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that after being convicted of a felony and serving a 4 year sentence he was unfit for the military and wanted to get out.  

The applicant’s intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request for discharge and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 2 September 1975 and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
7 October 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 3 years, 1 month and 3 days of total active service and had 1659 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.   
  
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.  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 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention was noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by the evidence submitted or the evidence of record.  The Board determined that the applicant’s multiple and extensive absences for which court-martial charges had been preferred against him is too serious to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  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

__mkp __  __eja____  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022512	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF COURT-MARTIAL	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.  813	A92.23	
3.  817	A92.27	
4.		
5.		
6.