MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            31 August 2000    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044818

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.   

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his separation he was told that his discharge could be upgraded but it wasn’t.  He also contends that he was in poor health.  In support of his application, he submits a Medical Questionnaire for In-Processing Physical, dated 14 March 1974; and a Standard Form 
93 (Report of Medical History), dated 14 March 1974.   

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

At age 17, with parental consent, the applicant enlisted on 12 January 1973 for a period of 3 years.  While in basic training, the applicant went AWOL from 
4 February 1973 to 18 February 1973.

On 22 February 1973 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL period.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.   

While in basic training, the applicant went AWOL from 28 February 1973 until he was apprehended by civilian authorities on 22 June 1973.  He went AWOL again on 2 July 1973 and remained absent until he was apprehended and returned to military control on 13 March 1974.

Court-martial charges for the aforementioned AWOL offenses were preferred against the applicant on 15 March 1974 and he was referred to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.   

After consulting with counsel, on 18 March 1974, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated that he had had open heart surgery and had high blood pressure and could not do the exercises because he got short of breath real fast. 

On 29 March 1974 the applicant was seen by the Cardiology department.  Standard Form 513 (Clinical Record), dated 29 March 1974, indicates that the applicant underwent heart surgery at age 11.  The clinical record also shows the entry “Imp [Impression]:  Congenital heart disease - repaired.”  

On 3 April 1974 the applicant’s unit commander stated that the applicant “has been medically examined and is qualified for separation”.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 10 April 1974 and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under conditions other than honorable on 24 April 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 3 months and 8 days of total active service and had 368 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the 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.

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 contention that he was told his discharge could be upgraded but it wasn’t.  However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.  

2  Although the applicant contends that he was in poor health at the time of his discharge, evidence of record show the applicant had been medically examined and found qualified for separation.
  
3.  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.

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

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 this 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

SAC____  BJE_____  JRS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044818	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000831	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740424	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.