MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045014

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has recently completed 15 years in prison and he had learned a valuable lesson.  He states that he wants to better his life and to get a better education so he will not be a burden on his community.

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

On 30 September 1968, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1.  

The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 5 March 1969 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 October 1968 until 13 February 1969.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay.

On 26 August 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL from 7 March 1969 until 15 June 1969 and for escaping from lawful confinement.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 5 months and a forfeiture of pay.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 March 1970 for being AWOL from 5 January 1970 until he was apprehended and placed in confinement on 11 February 1970.

After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 30 March 1970.  Accordingly, on 9 April 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 4 months and 4 days of total active service and he had 430 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial twice and he had 430 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  The fact that he now wants a better life is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.

4.  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.

5.  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

__ewl ___  ___kak__  ___gw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045014	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/04/09	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.