MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            7 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023171

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge from the Army was based on an isolated incident (48 days of AWOL).  He states that he was very young, inexperienced and frightened and that he found himself placed in a hostile and racial environment.  He concludes by stating that he was naïve to effects of a less than honorable discharge.

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

On 27 June 1969, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years with parental consent at age 17 in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his basic combat training; however, he was unsuccessful in completing his advanced individual training.

Charges were preferred against the applicant and referred to a special 
court-martial on 3 December 1969.  He was charged with being AWOL from 10 October until 26 November 1969 and from 2 December until 3 December 1969.  He was also charged with being disrespectful to his senior NCO and with disobeying a lawful order.

On 16 May 1970, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged that he understood the effects of a less than honorable discharge and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 30 March 1970.  Accordingly, on 10 April 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 7 months and 27 days of total active service and he had 48 days of lost time as a result of being AWOL.  He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 3 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request 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 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.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  He acknowledged that he understood the effects of a less than honorable discharge and there is no evidence of record to substantiate his contention that he was in a hostile and racial environment.

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

___ja ___  ___mlw__  ___inw __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023171	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/04/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	A71.00/Conduct triable by CM: AWOL	
2.  718	A75.00/Conduct triable by CM: DOLO	
3.  725	A76.00/Conduct triable by CM: Disrespect	
4.		
5.		
6.