MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  21 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047416

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was married, had 3 children and a pregnant wife when drafted, and under a lot of stress due to losing his 4th child and their home. 

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

He was inducted in the Army on 26 May 1971 as a private E-1.  He was promoted to private E-2 on 30 July 1971.

On 5 September 1971 he was reported absent without leave (AWOL).

He was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 14 October 1971, for AWOL from 7 September to 5 October 1971.  His punishment included restriction and forfeiture of pay.

On 10 November 1971 he was reported AWOL.  He was dropped from the rolls on 9 December 1971.

On 14 December 1971, his command notified his wife in writing of his status and advised her to convince the applicant to go to the nearest military or civilian authority and turn himself in.  She was requested to notify his command in writing stating whether or not she had heard from the applicant or had any information as to his whereabouts.  She did not respond.

On 11 April 1972, he was returned to military control and charged with one specification of AWOL from 10 November 1971 to 8 April 1972.

On 14 April 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He stated he was having serious financial problems and his landlord threatened to evict his wife and children.  He further stated that in order to assist his family he went AWOL and worked as a construction worker, thus reducing his debts considerably.  He requested an appropriate discharge be granted, so that he would be able to support his family.  He also acknowledged he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued an Undesirable Discharge (UD) Certificate, and the results of the issuance of such a discharge.

On 20 April 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that the applicant be reduced to private E-1 and issued an UD Certificate.

On 24 April 1972, he was reduced to pay grade E-1.

He was discharged on 28 April 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court-Martial.   He had a total of 4 months and 29 days net active service.

His records do not show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board.  Since more than 15 years had elapsed since his discharge, his eligibility to apply to the ADRB has expired.  He was provided a DD Form 149 to apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for action.

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.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant has not convinced the Board that he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

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.  He should not be permitted to change his mind about the discharge at this late date.

3.  The applicant has not submitted sufficient probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of the request.

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

__kk___  ___gw_____  __el___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047416	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.