MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:          12 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000040694

	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. John D. Miller		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant made no contentions.

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

That on 26 September 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years. 
He was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky for basic training.  

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was absent from his unit on 30 September 1972.  He was also absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 13 November 1972 until he was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Knox on 6 February 1973.  

On 23 February 1973, he went AWOL from the PCF and he remained AWOL until he was returned to military control at the PCF on 19 November 1973.

ON 30 November 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from his unit from 23 February-19 November 1973. 

On 21 December 1973, the applicant was discharged.  His records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, his records do contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that was signed by the applicant at the time of discharge.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  He had completed 3 months and 5 days of active military service and he had 356 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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  He would have consulted with defense counsel and signed a statement indicating that he had been informed that he could receive a UD and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  He would have voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge.  He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  In view of the applicant’s repeated periods of AWOL in excess of 350 days, the Board concludes that his character of service is appropriate.

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

__jdm___  __jed____  __cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR20000040694	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001012	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.70000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.