MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            29 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026090

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his discharge he was too young to understand what a discharge under other than honorable conditions really meant. He further states that he is currently receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration because of emotional and mental problems which were probably evident at the time he was in the Army and should have been recognized/noticed by his superior officers.  He also states that at the time of his discharge he was under the impression that his discharge would be upgraded automatically after 2 years provided he stayed out of trouble. 

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

The applicant enlisted with parental consent on 28 July 1972 for a period of 3 years, training as a wheel vehicle mechanic and assignment to Fort Carson, Colorado.

He successfully completed his basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Carson on 5 October 1972 to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT). 

On 3 January 1973 he went AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 3 May 1973.  He again went AWOL on 31 May 1973 and remained absent in a deserter status until he was apprehended by the FBI on 24 October 1973 and was returned to military control.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which indicates that the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 4 December 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 7 months and 7 days of total active service and had 272 days of lost time due to AWOL and imprisonment.  He was still in a trainee status at the time of his discharge.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the seriousness of his offense and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

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

___gp___  ___cjp___  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026090	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/12/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GOOD OF THE SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.