MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 
	
	BOARD DATE:  15 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024015

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he apologizes for the mistakes that he made when he was in the military.  He was a young, mixed up youth when he was forced to enlist in the military or to go to jail.  He also states that he believes that Item 11b (Station or Installation at Which Effected Discharge) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to be in error.

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

On 1 March 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army at age 18 for a period of 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 09B.  On 15 March 1971, he entered basic combat training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. 

On 13 March 1971, while assigned to Fort Campbell, the applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  On 23 April 1971, he was returned to military control at Fort Belvior, Virginia and he was placed in the Personnel Control Facility (PCF).

He departed AWOL from the PCF at Fort Belvoir from 29 April-19 May 1971, from 21 May-8 June 1971, from 10-22 June 1971, and from 10 July-
16 September 1971.  

DA Form 19-32 (Military Police Report), dated 21 September 1971, shows that on 16 September 1971, the applicant surrendered to the Provost Marshal’s Office, Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, Anniville, Pennsylvania.  The very same day, military police from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania escorted him to the US Naval Brig and placed him in confinement pending disposition.

On 22 September 1971, Naval personnel released him to Army personnel at the PCF, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.

On 1 October 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above four periods of AWOL.  He consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he understood the ramifications of a UD.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 8 October 1971, the applicant’s unit commander recommended separation with a UD.  On 21 October 1971, competent authority approved his request.  

On 21 October 1971, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  He had completed 
2 months, and 6 days of active military service and he had 165 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. 

The available records do not indicate that the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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 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 was authorized, a UD was then 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.  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.

2.	The applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is
no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age that successfully completed their military service obligation.

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.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

4.	The applicant was discharged while assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland. 
Therefore, Item 11b on his DD Form 214 is correct as it shows that the applicant was discharged at that installation on 21 October 1971.
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

TNK____  EB______  MDM____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024015	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711021	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.