MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047988

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge he had family problems and that he felt worthless to the Army because he could not take the overseas shots or serve his country.  He also contends that he was young and dumb.  

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

The applicant was inducted on 6 June 1968.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a cook. 

The applicant went AWOL on 11 December 1968 and returned to military control on 12 March 1969.  He commenced another period of AWOL on 24 March 1969, was apprehended by civilian authorities on 8 October 1969 and returned to military control on 13 October 1969.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 16 October 1969 for the two AWOL periods. 

On 26 November 1969, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request, he acknowledged that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an undesirable discharge, that he personally made the choice to submit his request and did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 9 December 1969 the company and intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

The approval authority approved the applicant’s request on 16 December 1969 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 January 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year and 14 days of total active service. 

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 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 applicant’s contention that he was young and dumb at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board noted that the applicant was almost 24 years of age at the time when he executed his voluntary request for discharge.

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.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the 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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JHL_____  GDP____  DPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047988	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700108	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.