MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           15 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200035407

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire 		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 (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had trouble adjusting to Army life because his mother was dying and he was having race relations problems.  He also feels that he did not receive adequate legal counsel.

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

That on 17 December 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and on the job training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63A (Mechanic Maintenance Helper) at Fort Hood, Texas.  Upon completion of his MOS training, he was assigned permanent duty at Fort Hood.  

He was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 5 July-29 October 1974.  On 31 October 1974, he personally signed the special court-martial charges preferred against him.  Prior to going to trial on 3 December 1974, he departed his unit AWOL again.  On 6 January 1975, the charges were withdrawn to add to the original charges an additional charge of desertion.  

On 5 May 1975, the applicant returned to military control.  On 14 May 1975, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense(s) for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he was guilty of the offenses, and that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf, in which he indicated that “his wife had taken his child and left him.  He felt if he had not joined the military she would still be with him.  He wanted to be discharged so that he could reconstruct his life.”

On 16 May 1975, his unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  He was placed on excess leave.  On 3 June 1975, competent authority approved his request.

On 10 July 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  His DD Form 
214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he had completed 
9 months, and 26 days of active military service to include 56 days excess leave and he also had 271 days lost time due to being AWOL.  

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

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 a UD.

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.  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.

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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant signed a statement in which he acknowledges that he consulted with legal counsel and that he had been fully advised of his rights and the offenses for which he was charged.

4.  The Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

5.  The available records do not show that the applicant was discriminated against. He has provided nothing to the contrary.

6.  His conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

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

__tdh___  __aao___  __gjw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000335407	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	000815	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750710	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.