MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            22 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028277

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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:  In effect, that he joined the Army with the intentions of becoming a model soldier but had trouble right from the start.  He states that his parents separated while he was attending advanced individual training (AIT) and he was denied a leave because he was needed in Vietnam.  However, after being trained for Vietnam he was transferred to Korea and shortly thereafter received a letter from his girlfriend and mother of his children, that his youngest child had health problems.  Once again he was denied leave and at that point drugs and alcohol became a big part of his life.  He further states that he began to experience pay problems and was told to be quiet or he would receive nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  He also lost his post exchange card and when he reported it he was accused of selling it on the black market.  He also experienced problems converting the money he kept in the company safe to American money because the company commander thought it was money made on the black market and because he had been experiencing pay problems.  When he was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado he had decided that he had had more than he could take and went AWOL.  When he was caught he was locked up at Fort Riley, Kansas and was given the choice of losing all his rank and pay or accepting an undesirable discharge so he took the discharge.  He continues by stating that others did far worse to avoid service and Vietnam and were pardoned by the President.  He also states that he is sorry for the actions of his youth and asks that the Board consider the consequences he has suffered and grant his appeal.  In support of his application he submits seven letters of support that attests to his post service conduct and character.

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

The applicant enlisted with parental consent in Kansas City, Missouri on 30 April 1971 for a period of 3 years and training as a construction and utilities worker.  At the time of his enlistment he was single and listed no dependent children.

He successfully completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Korea on 14 September 1971.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 19 April 1972.

On 28 April 1972 NJP was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language towards a superior warrant officer and taking a military vehicle without an authorized dispatch.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended), and extra duty.

The applicant completed his tour in Korea on 7 October 1972 and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado with a report date of 17 November 1972.  The applicant failed to report as directed and remained AWOL until 28 November 1972.  Before charges could be preferred against him he went AWOL again on 4 December 1972 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Wichita, Kansas on 21 February 1973.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 8 March 1973 for the aforementioned AWOL charges.

After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He also indicated in his request that he understood the consequences of accepting a discharged under other than honorable conditions and that he had not been forced to request a discharge.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge; however, the applicant went AWOL again on 22 March 1973 before he could be processed for separation.  Accordingly, he was discharged in absentia while in an AWOL status on 29 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 7 months, and 20 days of total active service and had 100 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever 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.  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.

4.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

5.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

6.  The supporting statements submitted by the applicant with his application have also been considered but are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the seriousness of his offense and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.  

7.  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.

8.  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 __  __el_____  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028277	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/03/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/GOOD OF SVC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.