MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035124

	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. Carl W. S. Chun
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he wasn’t given a fair and impartial trial; that he received no legal advice and wasn’t asked how he pleaded to the charges.  He encloses a 4-page list of contentions, in which he alleges:  that he deserves a better discharge because he has been in no trouble since his separation and his post-service conduct has been outstanding; that he started using drugs after he entered the service, but received no help when he asked for it; that he wasn’t given legal counsel before he signed his request for discharge; that his commander was racially prejudiced; that the only trouble he got into was with civilians; that the only counseling he got was in a room with other people and a lawyer who instructed them how to fill out forms; that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that his service was honorable; that the service did not honor his enlistment contract; and that no one told him what the impact of the undesirable discharge would be.

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

He enlisted on 16 Jun 1972 and, after training as a medical corpsman, was assigned to Fort Ord, California.  His enlistment contract, DD Form 4, shows he enlisted for airborne training and duty; however, there is no indication that the applicant received such training, or explanation of why he did not receive it.

On 15 March 1973, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) by his unit commander, and remained absent until he was returned to military control at Fort Gordon, Georgia, on/about 1 March 1974.

On 14 March 1974, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 15 March 1973 to 2 March 1974.  On 21 March 1974, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  In so doing, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge(s) against him, charges which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also stated that he had no desire for rehabilitation or further military service, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he said that he had no potential for rehabilitation, that he knew he would get an undesirable discharge, and that he was aware he would lose most benefits, but wanted to be discharged immediately.

On 3 April 1974, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 8 May 1974 at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He had 11 months and 1 day of creditable service and 352 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.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  The applicant’s contentions are rejected.  The evidence of record clearly shows he was properly counseled and that he understood what the impact of an undesirable discharge would be.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant did not receive the airborne training as provided for by his enlistment contract which may have contributed to his decision to go AWOL.  However, there were other courses of action available to the applicant to rectify his situation.

5.  There is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial prejudice.

6.  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 this requirement.

7.  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

__rjw____  __js____  __ra_____  DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035124	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740508	
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.