MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                            31 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:                    AR2000045382

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Chairperson	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has had no problems since his discharge.  He also states that his two letters and statement reveal that he is now an
honorable citizen.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214; however, the two letters and a statement cited were not attached to his application.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 20 June 1969 as a food service specialist.

On 22 December 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 2 November 1969 to 18 November 1969 
(16 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 February 1973 for being AWOL from 31 May 1970 to 10 January 1971 (221 days), from 2 February 1971 to 3 February 1971 (1 day) and from 12 March 1971 to 29 January 1973 
(682 days).

On 9 March 1973, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 21 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 27 March 1973.  He had a total
of 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days of creditable service and 306 days of lost time due to AWOL prior to his scheduled expiration term of service (ETS) and 632 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement subsequent to his normal ETS.

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

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded; however, his extensive absences of 306 days prior to his ETS and 632 days subsequent to his normal ETS were too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

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:

EJA_____  BFH____  ALR_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045382	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730327	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.