MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037288

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he never understood what being discharged under undesirable conditions meant until he found out he had no right to vote, buy a handgun or have a liquor license.  He states that he knows that his being immature at the time was no excuse for his actions; however, he would appreciate anything that can be done to assist him in getting his rights restored.

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

He was inducted in the Army at age 20 on 5 April 1966 and he successfully completed his training as a smoke generator specialist.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 5 August 1966 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 14 December 1966.

On 2 November 1967 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 13 March until 15 May 1967, from 26 May until 5 October 1967 and from 22 October until 26 October 1967.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 21 May 1968 of being AWOL from 1 April to 1 May 1968.  His sentence consisted of hard labor for 30 days.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 October 1968 and referred to a general court-martial.  He was charged with being AWOL from 11 July until 13 August 1968, from 15 August until 30 August 1968 and from 31 August until 4 September 1968.  He was also charged with escaping from lawful confinement in the post stockade on 31 August 1968.

The applicant was notified of the charges pending against him on 9 October 1968.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time he submitted his request for discharge he indicated that he understood the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 13 November 1968.  Accordingly, on 26 November 1968, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months and 19 days of total active service and he had 393 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.  The records clearly show that at the time he submitted his request for discharge he acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 21 years of age at the time of his AWOL.

5.  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.

6.  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

___gp___  ___mvt__  __eb____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037288	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/11/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.