MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047406

	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. Ermest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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, correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his character of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature at the time of his discharge, was unable to read or write, and did not know what he was signing.
In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

At the age of 19, the applicant entered active duty on 19 August 1968 as a
small arms repairman.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 4 November 1969 of being AWOL from 30 December 1968 to 14 July 1969 (197 days).  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and confinement for 30 days.  

Between December 1969 and January 1970, the applicant was punished twice by nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for instances of being AWOL from 1 December to 2 December 1969 (2 days) and on 20 January 1970 (1 day).  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand and 14 days restriction.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 8 January 
1970 and was found qualified for separation.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 February 
to 2 March 1970 (7 days) and from 12 March to 11 May 1970 (61 days).

On 12 May 1970, 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.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 15 June 1970, 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 25 June 1970.  He had a total
of 11 months, and 28 days of creditable service and 312 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 21 March 1972.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 21 May 1973.

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB on 10 August 1979 for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 13 March 1981. 

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 notes the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature
at the time of his discharge.  The Board also notes that the applicant was 
19 years of age at the time of his enlistment and first offense and 20 years of age at the time he committed his second offense.  However, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his excessive amount of lost time with only 11 months and 28 days of good service.

2.  The Board also notes the applicant’s contentions that he was unable to read or write and did not know what he was signing.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

3.  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.

4.  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.  

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

6.  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.

7.  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

__ew__  ___ac__  ___dh_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047406	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.