MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  6 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000048298

	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	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  Applicant makes no statement in support of his request.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 20 November 1972.  He completed infantry and basic airborne training and was assigned as a scout driver at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ on 18 April 1973 for a 1 day AWOL.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 effective 1 November 1973.

The applicant was AWOL again on 15 April 1974.  He surrendered to military authorities as a result of an FBI investigation on 16 September 1974.  Charges were preferred for the AWOL offense on 27 September 1974.  On 30 September 1974 the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense charged and that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of trial by court-martial.

After consulting with counsel he acknowledged that he may be ineligible for many or all veterans benefits under both Federal and state law.  In an attached statement the applicant also acknowledged that he did not want to remain in the Army and be retrained to Army standards.

On 10 October 1974 the unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with issuance of an undesirable discharge.  The separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant’s request on 24 October 1974 and directed separation in the lowest enlisted grade with issuance of an undesirable discharge certificate.

Effective 18 November 1974 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-1 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 1 year, 6 months, and 23 days creditable service and 156 days lost time.

There is no indication in the available record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year time limit required.

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.  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 reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048298	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010306	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.