MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           24 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041751

	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	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he soldiered; that he was not court-martialed; that his discharge should have been upgraded during the past 30 years.  He provides no documentation in support of his request.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years on 19 July 1967.

The applicant's record reflects numerous indisciplines.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 22 August 1967 for being absent without leave (AWOL) on 20 August 1967.  He was convicted of being AWOL by three separate special courts-martial:  on 13 May 1968 for being AWOL from 15 February 1968 through 19 April 1968; on 16 July 1968 for being AWOL from 14 June 1968 through 7 July 1968; and on 20 February 1969 for being AWOL from 5 November 1968 through 17 February 1969.

On 26 August 1970, general court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 16 July 1970 through 19 August 1970.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense.  Further, the applicant stated that he understood that he could receive a UD and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The company commander, battalion commander, and brigade commander all recommended approval of a UD.  On 20 October 1970, the separation authority approved the separation with a UD.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

On 20 October 1970, the applicant was discharged with a UD under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of discharge, the applicant had 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days on his current enlistment and 175 days of 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Army policy at the time of the applicant's discharge stated that although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UD was normally considered appropriate.

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 applicant's military record contains numerous incidents of AWOL for which he was convicted by three special courts-martial and received one NJP.  Court-martial charges were preferred against him for his period of AWOL in 1970 and, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  The applicant’s chapter 10 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.

3.  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__  __esc____  __jtm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041751	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001024	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19701020	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.