MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044329

	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			
	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		Member	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		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).

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

On 24 April 1969 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for basic combat training. 

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-2.  He is in receipt of the National Defense Service Medal.  

On 31 July 1969 he was convicted by special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 occasions.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for
6 months and a forfeiture of $40 pay per month for six months.

He was confined at the Confinement Training Facility, Fort Riley, Kansas.  On
23 October 1969 the unexecuted portions of the sentence to confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of pay were remitted.

On 24 October 1969 he departed Fort Riley to attend advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

On 28 November 1969 the applicant again departed AWOL.  He was dropped from the roles (DFR) as a deserter on 29 December 1969.

On 1 June 1972 he returned to military control at Fort Ord, California.

On 6 June 1972 the applicant was charged with AWOL for violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  He acknowledged notification of the charges, consulted with legal counsel, and requested discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  In a written statement be stated “a chapter 10 will be fine with me…I just want out as soon as possible.” 

On 29 June 1972 the appropriate authority approved his discharge and ordered him separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A).  Accordingly, on 3 July 1972 the applicant was discharged.  He was credited with
2 months and 25 days service for the period under review, and 1065 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth 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. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  
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 this requirement.

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

___GDP_  __MHM_  __PM____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044329	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720703	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	AWOL	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  	144.6300.0000	
 2.  	144.9231.0000	
 3. 0		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.