MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045041

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he thinks 31 years is long enough to be humiliated for something that was not his fault.  He alludes to providing a detailed account of his situation in an earlier letter that was not made available to this Board. 

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

He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 January 1961 and completed two years of honorable service on 17 January 1963 and immediately reenlisted for six years for the enlistment under review.  At the time of his reenlistment, he was serving in Germany, held the rank of private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3), and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16D (Hawk Missile Crewman).  

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates in block 31 (Overseas Service) that he completed his tour in Germany on 6 March 1966.  Block 33 (Appointments & Reductions) shows that he attained the rank of specialist/E-5 (SP5), the highest rank he held on active duty, on 25 October 1965 and that he was subsequently reduced to the rank of specialist/E-4 (SP4) on 10 May 1966 and private/E-1 (PV1) on 12 October 1966. Block 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that he was assigned to the United States Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida upon completion of his tour in Germany and arrived there on 10 March 1966. 

His disciplinary history for the enlistment under review, prior to the incident which ultimately led to his discharge, included his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on four separate occasions and convictions by both a summary and a special court-martial.

The applicant accepted NJP on the following three occasions for being absent from his unit without proper authority:  6 February 1963, 7 April 1964, and 
29 December 1964; in addition, he accepted NJP on 11 July 1966 for having failed to go to his prescribed place of duty.  

On 6 May 1966, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) for one day, from 3 to 4 May 1966.  On 7 October 1966 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL for 55 days, from 30 July to 23 September 1966.  His sentence for this last conviction included six months confinement at hard labor of which he served 64 days from 7 October to 
9 December 1966.

On 24 March 1967 he went absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit and on 
22 April 1967, he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of his organization.  He remained away for 738 days until 31 March 1969, at which time he returned to military control at Fort Meade, Maryland.

The record does not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing.  However, there is a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) on file, which was authenticated by the applicant on the date of his discharge.

The DD Form 214 confirms that the applicant was discharged on 1 April 1969, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of “for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial.”  At the time of his separation he had completed 3 years, 10 months, and 13 days of creditable active military service on the enlistment under review, a total of 5 years, 
10 months, and 13 days of active military service, and had accrued a total of 
861 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

There no  indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge 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 discharge an UD was authorized.  

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 separation packet containing the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing and the specific events that led to his discharge from the Army are not on file.  However, his record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

3.  Finally, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the characterization of service was commensurate with the applicant’s entire record of service for the enlistment under review.  

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

__ena___  __mdm__  __clg____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045041	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/04/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service-In Lieu of Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.