MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:          2 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999022804

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable and that his reason for discharge be changed to “for the convenience of the government”.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature and did not realize the value of an honorable discharge.  However, now that he has matured, he realizes how valuable an honorable discharge is and believes that if he had received a better discharge from the Army, that he would not be where he is now. The applicant submitted a letter in support of his application.

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

On 30 January 1968 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  At the time of his enlistment he was 18 years old.  He was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for basic combat training (BCT).  He successfully completed BCT at Fort Benning and on 6 April 1968 he was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for advanced infantry training (AIT).  On 14 April 1968 the applicant depart AIT in an AWOL status.  On 13 May 1968 the applicant was dropped from the rolls (DFR).  On 11 July 1968 the applicant returned to military control.

On 19 October 1968 the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status from Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, and did remain so absent until on or about 20 February 1969.  He was charged with the aforementioned periods of AWOL.  On 1 April 1969 the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to 5 months of confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $73.00 per month for 5 months.

On 8 April 1969 the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and did remain so absent until 18 November 1969.  On 19 December 1969 the applicant was found guilty by special court-martial for AWOL.  He was sentenced to 5 months of confinement at hard labor.

On 9 Mar 1970 the applicant received a permanent change of station (PCS) to Fort Ord, California for AIT.

On 2 April 1970 the applicant departed from his unit at Fort Ord in an AWOL status.  

On 10 April 1970 the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities for burglarizing a laundromat.  He was arraigned and held without bail pending grand jury action in September 1970.  He was committed to prison and a military detainer was lodged to ensure his return to military control.  On 1 May 1970 he was dropped from the rolls.  

On 15 September 1970 the applicant was sentenced to 9-36 months confinement in Schuylkill County Prison.

On 10 August 1971 the applicant appeared before the Pennsylvania State Board of Probation and Parole, at which time he was granted parole, effective 15 September 1971.

On 16 September 1971 he was returned to military control.  On 16 September 1971 he was confined pending arraignment.  

On 10 November 1971 the applicant departed in an AWOL status and remained so absent until 4 January 1972.  On 14 February 1972 the applicant once again departed his unit in an AWOL status and did remain so absent until 2 March 1972.  

On 3 March 1972 he was apprehended by civil authorities for parole violation and AWOL.  On 23 March 1972 he was released to military control and confined at the US Naval Brig, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  On 29 March 1972 the applicant was released from the Naval Brig and transported to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Meade pending disposition of his case.

On 31 March 1972 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 many of Veteran benefits under state law.

On 10 April 1972 the applicant was charged with three (3) periods of AWOL.  On 20 April 1972 the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service.  

On 23 May 1972 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, the applicant was discharged after completing 6 months and 20 days of active military service and accruing 1371 days of lost time.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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.  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 applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

2.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.  Discharge was effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was separated.

3.  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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The applicant 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. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

5.  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.

6.  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

__SVC___  __VBC__  _JPS___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022804	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720523	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	7100	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.9301		
2.9231		
3.9233		
4.		
5.		
6.