MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 April 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035522

	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.

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr..Van B. Cunningham		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 an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he volunteered for service in Vietnam and his lieutenant denied his request; that he went AWOL and was picked up and taken to Philadelphia where he was left in prison for approximately a year; that he would have completed his time in service if he had not been forgotten in prison; that after he was discharged, he was instructed to go to Pottsville to have his discharge changed to honorable; that he was involved in an accident due to a severe ice storm and never took care of upgrading his discharge; and, that he is now a minister and would like his discharge upgraded.

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

On 20 July 1968 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and remained at Fort Dix, New Jersey, for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 70A (Clerk). 

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-1 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 15 October 1968 he departed AWOL.  On 14 November 1968 the command sent a letter to the applicant’s father notifying him that his son was AWOL.

On 1 December 1968 the applicant was returned to military control at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The applicant indicated during his return interview that he had gone AWOL to see his girlfriend because she was dating another man.

On 3 December 1968 he accepted nonjudicial (NJP) punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL.  The punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of $25 per month for 2 months.

On 12 December 1968 the applicant again departed AWOL.  

On 17 February 1970 he was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort George Meade, Maryland.  He was in military confinement from 18 February 1970 until his separation from service.

On 10 March 1970 he was charged with AWOL. The applicant acknowledged notification of the charges, and after legal consultation, he requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  

On 17 March 1970 the appropriate authority approved his discharge and ordered him separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A).  Accordingly, on 17 March 1970 the applicant was discharged having been credited with 3 months and 22 days active military service and 491 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth 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 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  

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.

3.  The applicant has not submitted evidence, nor does the evidence of record support, the applicant’s contentions that he volunteered for service in Vietnam or that he was apprehended by military authorities and taken to prison in Philadelphia where he was forgotten for a year before he was punitively discharged.  After his first period of AWOL, the applicant was assigned to duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey; after his second period of AWOL he was in military confinement from 18 February 1970 until his request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10 were approved.

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 the aforementioned 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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jph___  __eja___  ___vbc___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035522	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700317	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	7100	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  9217		
 2.  0100		
 3.  9500		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.