MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           10 May 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036002

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		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 an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because it has messed up his life and it violated his constitutional rights.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant has set forth his contentions and that the applicant’s service record be extensively reviewed to ensure a fair and equitable decision.

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

On 25 March 1969 he was inducted into the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for advanced individual training on 16 June 1969.  

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 1 August 1969 the applicant departed AWOL and remained so absent until 4 August 1972 when he was apprehended by military authorities and returned to duty at Fort George Meade, Maryland, where he was initially hospitalized for drug addiction treatment.

On 15 August 1972 he requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge.  Accordingly, on 18 October 1972 he was discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He was credited with 6 months and 3 days of active military service in the period under review and a total of 1017 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 UD is normally considered appropriate. 

On 13 November 1973 the applicant appeared and gave testimony before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in his pursuit of an upgrade of his discharge.  He testified that he went AWOL because his wife was pregnant and not in good health, and that he was not making enough money in the Army to adequately support her.  He further testified that he worked at a gas station and sold drugs in order to support his wife.  He became addicted to heroin, and his wife notified military authorities of his location when she grew tired of his addiction.  On 11 December 1973, the ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

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.  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.

3.  While the Board noted the applicant’s contention that his UD has messed up his life and violated his constitutional rights, the evidence of record shows that he made a voluntary and conscious decision to go AWOL when there were other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief for his personal problems, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action.  
There is no evidence in the record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support that his constitutional rights were violated.

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

 MKP             GDP         TBR III     DENY APPLICATION

    Carl W.S. Chun
    Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036002	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200000510	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721018	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.7100.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9231.0000	
2.	144.9235.0000	
3.	144.0100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.