MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  25 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000035337

	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		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was not really an injustice but he had several personal problems that prevented him from serving satisfactorily.  He submits no documentation in support of his request.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 1 October 1968.  He completed infantry training and was assigned to Vietnam.  He failed to report for overseas movement and on 24 March 1969 was convicted by special court-martial of 17 days AWOL.

The applicant was reassigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky and on 12 June 1969 he was convicted by special court-martial of 28 Days AWOL.  He had been apprehended by civil authorities and the approved sentence included confinement at hard labor.

On 20 February 1970 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for six separate violations of Article 86, absent from his place of duty.  During the 7 months service following his release from confinement, he was AWOL on four separate occasions totaling 44 days.  On 15 May 1970 charges were preferred for the AWOL offenses.

On 27 May 1970, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he might receive an undesirable discharge and may be deprived of many or all Federal and state veteran’s benefits.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed separation with an undesirable discharge.  Effective 23 June 1970 the applicant was separated under other than honorable conditions under authority of 
AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 11 months and 16 days creditable service and 280 days lost time.

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.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15 year time-limit established for filing.

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.  There is no evidence of record, and none submitted by the applicant, to substantiate the claim regarding his personal problems.  The Board notes that the applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf during his request for separation.

3.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his discharge was too severe.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__tk___  ___jk___  __sk____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035337	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700623	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.