MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:                 22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2000035350

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was denied an upgrade of his discharge twice in the past.  He also states that he was under the impression that after a certain amount of years after his release that his discharge would be upgraded.

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

He entered active duty on 25 April 1968 as a medical corpsman.

The applicant’s records show that he went AWOL from 10 July 1968 to 13 July 1968 (4 days), 25 September 1968 to 11 December 1968 (78 days) and from 26 May 1969 to 22 April 1970 (332 days).

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 January 1969 for being AWOL from 25 September 1968 to 12 December 1968 (78 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.  His sentence was adjudged on 20 January 1969 and approved on 23 January 1969.

On 24 February 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty.

On 10 June 1970, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 2 July 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 22 July 1970.  He had a total of 
10 months and 29 days of creditable service and 483 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 28 August 1974.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his request on 17 December 1974. 

The applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) on 8 April 1977. 
The SDRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his request on 2 August 1977.
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. 

The Special Discharge Review Board Program, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977.  The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria.
Public Law 95-126 enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.  It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases.  The services were then required to individually compare each discharge previously upgraded under one of the special discharge review programs to the uniform standards and to affirm only those cases where the case met those standards.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was denied an upgrade of his discharge twice in the past.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant did apply to the ADRB and the DOD SDRP for an upgrade of his discharge, his cases were properly considered and his requests were denied by proper authority.  

2.  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.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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:

LLS_____  AAO____  RA______  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035350	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700722	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.