MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                 11 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2000038292

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That all he was charged with was AWOL.  He also states that since our attitude has changed concerning the war in Vietnam, maybe the Army will be more lenient. 

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

He entered active duty on 18 September 1967 as a duty soldier.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 23 September 1968 for being AWOL from 7 February 1968 to 21 April 1968 (73 days) and from 4 May 1968 to 2 September 1968 (121 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.  His sentence was adjudged on 23 September 1968 and approved on 25 September 1968.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 25 August 1970 for being AWOL from 4 October 1968 to 13 December 1969 (435 days) and from 1 April 1970 to 5 August 1970 (126 days). 

On 26 August 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.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 27 August 1970 and was found qualified for separation.

On 4 September 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 16 September 1970.  He had a total of 11 months, and 7 days of creditable service and 855 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his only offense was AWOL;
that our attitude has changed concerning the war in Vietnam and that maybe the Army will be more lenient.  However, the Board determined leniency was not appropriate in this case because of his extensive AWOL totaling more than 700 days.  The severity of the applicant’s offenses warranted trial by court-martial.

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

3.  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.

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:

RVO____  JMA____  CJP_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038292	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	200005XX	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.