MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023776

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since he served during the Vietnam era, he should be allowed to claim a 5-point veteran preference so he can obtain Federal employment.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1972.

While in initial training, he went AWOL from 16 January to 15 April 1973.  When court-martial charges were preferred against him for his absence, he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial for the good of the service.  In his request he stated that he couldn’t take orders, that he was on kitchen patrol all the time, that he had a medical problem that the military doctors couldn’t diagnose, and that he wanted to help his parents who had just declared bankruptcy.  He also said that he had been married while AWOL, that he had a good job waiting for him if he were to be discharged, and that he knew that he would lose veterans benefits if his request were to be approved but it “wouldn’t hurt me too bad.”  He added that he believed that if he were not discharged that he would go AWOL again.

His request was approved and he was given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 21 May 1973.  He had 5 months and 29 days of creditable service and 90 days of lost time.

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 and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not provided any reason for upgrading his discharge other than the fact that he served during the Vietnam War era.

2.  The applicant did not even complete his initial training, he went AWOL for a prolonged period of time, he stated that he knew and didn’t care that an undesirable discharge would make him ineligible for veterans benefits, and he stated that he would go AWOL again if he was not discharged.  Such a service record certainly warranted an undesirable discharge.

3.  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

__svw___  _vbc____  _bje_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023776	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.