MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026318

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 after joining the Army, he fell in with the wrong crowd and went AWOL several times.  Finally, he volunteered for duty in Vietnam where he served 18 months.  He states that he was misled into believing that if he extended his tour in Vietnam, he would be separated when he returned to the States.  But nothing was said to him about making up his lost time.  When he returned to the United States and wasn’t separated, he felt he had been “used,” so he went AWOL again.

He stresses that he did not burn his draft card or run off to Canada or Russia to keep from serving in the Armed Forces, yet those same people have received pardons from the U.S. Government while he is still carrying this millstone around his neck.  He states his record is clean; he has never been in trouble with the law and has done all in his power to be a good citizen, husband and father.  He worked with the Salvation Army to feed the needy, and supported Habitat for Humanity to house the homeless.

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

He enlisted on 14 September 1967.  While in training, he went AWOL and established a disciplinary record consisting of nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and court-martial.

On 16 November 1967, while in basic training, the applicant was administered NJP for AWOL from 16 September 1967 to 29 October 1967 (44 days).  Again, on 19 December 1967, he was administered NJP for AWOL from 22 November 1967 to 16 December 1967 (25 days).  

While undergoing advanced individual training, the applicant was tried by special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 13 July 1968 to 1 November 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (which was suspended for 4 months), forfeiture of $73.00 per month for 6 months, and reduction in grade to private E-1.

Eventually the applicant completed his basic and advanced training and was reassigned to Vietnam where he served 18 months.  The Board notes that during his tour in Vietnam, the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.  The Board also notes that after completing his tour in Vietnam, the applicant went AWOL upon arrival in the United States and never reported to his new duty station.  

On 16 November 1971, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 11 September 1970 to 1 November 1971.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he acknowledged he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that he did not desire further rehabilitation, nor had he any desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 6 December 1971, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 14 December 1971 at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He had 2 years, 5 months and 27 days of creditable service and 633 days of time lost.

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.

On 29 May 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his 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 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.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  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.

4.  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

__rvo___  ___eb___  __rjw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026318	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.