MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            20 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000046295

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of the offenses that he committed he did not have the knowledge or level of maturity that military life required.  He was only 17 years old and it was the first time that he had been away from home.  At that time, he did not understand how the decisions that he made would affect his future.  He submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a letter written in his own behalf outlining his work history and background since leaving the military; and a letter from his current employer that indicates he is a responsible, outstanding, hard working employee. 

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

That on 20 October 1969, both the applicant’s father and his mother signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military at age 17.  On 
28 October 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  He completed basic individual training at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 3 April 1970, he departed Fort Dix enroute to Fort Hood, Texas, to attend advanced individual training.  On 18 April 1970, he failed to report and was declared in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  On 30 April 1970, he reported to Fort Hood.  He was AWOL from Fort Hood from 15 June-16 July 1970, from 21 July-11 October 1970 and from 14-25 October 1970.  He was placed in pretrial confinement at the Post Stockade, Fort Hood, after his last period of AWOL.  

On 15 December 1970, while in pretrial confinement, special court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from his unit from 15 June-16 July 1970 and from 21 July-11 October 1970.

On 13 January 1971, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  

On 15 January 1971, his unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  

On 20 January 1971, the intermediate commander recommended that the request be disapproved.  He stated that he felt the applicant's record did not warrant discharge, because he had no record of nonjudicial punishment or courts-martial.  
The intermediate commander's endorsement also shows that on an unknown date, the applicant appeared before the Middlesex, Massachusetts, Superior Court for the charges of larceny, and breaking and entering.  The Lowell, Massachusetts, District Court determined that there was probable cause and the applicant was placed on parole and transferred to military control at Fort Hood.  The intermediate commander stated that "If the EM is currently serving a probated sentence, another AWOL might violate the terms of the probation."  He stated that the civil court incident might contribute to the applicant's rehabilitation effort. 

On 26 January 1971, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel at Fort Hood.  He was found to be free from mental disease and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  Further, it was determined that he possessed the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The recommendation was that the applicant be separated because rehabilitation efforts were not likely to bring about significant changes in attitude or behavior.

On 29 January 1971, the approval authority denied the applicant's request for discharge.

On 4 February 1971, the applicant departed AWOL from the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Hood and on 15 March 1971 he was returned to military control at the PCF, Fort Devens, Massachusetts.  He was AWOL from the PCF, Fort Devens from 5 April-14 July 1971 and again on 4 August 1971. 

A DA Form 1 (Morning Report) shows that on 27 October 1971, while the applicant was AWOL, he appeared before the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Superior Court and pleaded guilty to violating his probation.  He was sentenced to "6 months in the Billerica House of Corrections."  

On 28 January 1972, he was placed on probation and returned to military control at the PCF, Fort Devens. 

On an unknown date court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from the PCF, Fort Hood from 4 February-14 March 1971, and for being AWOL from the PCF, Fort Devens from 5 April-14 July 1971 and from 4 August 1971-27 January 1972.  

On 9 February 1972, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He contends in a statement that he submitted in his own behalf that his parents needed him at home and that he was unable to adjust to military life.  He also stated that he had been confined at the Billerica House of Corrections for the past 3 months from 28 October 1971-28 January 1972 and that he had received a 2 1/2 year suspended sentence, 1 year on probation and that he had to pay the state of Massachusetts $2,000.  

On 25 February 1972, his unit and the intermediate commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  On 13 March 1972, competent authority approved his request. 

On 17 March 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  His DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he had completed 1 year, 1 month and 8 days of active military service.  He also had 467 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.  An undetermined number of days were lost subsequent to the normal expiration of his term of service.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

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 a UD.

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.  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.

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3.  His conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

4.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

5.  The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s character references to include the fact that he has a matured and become a productive citizen since being separated from active duty.  The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments.  However, post service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

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

__fne____  __rjw___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

					

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046295	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010320	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720317	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.