MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            2 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048316

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his separation documents are in error and that he needs them corrected to receive benefits from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA).  In support of his application, the applicant submitted the following documents:  a copy of his DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States; reply from the VA denying his request for service-connected or non service-connected disability benefits; a statement in his own behalf to the VA; a response to his request for separation documents/information; and a copy of each DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, for each period of service.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 15 March 1968 for a period of 4 years and assignment within or near Homestead Air Force Base, Florida.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 16B, Hercules Missile Crewman, and was assigned to Homestead Air Force Base.  The applicant was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  At the time of discharge, he had attained the rank of private first class/E-3 and had completed 9 months and 1 day of active military service.

On 16 December 1968, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for 4 years and for training in a MOS producing Army Service School, 62B, Engineer Equipment Maintenance.  Following completion of advanced individual training, the applicant was awarded MOS 62B and was assigned to Korea.

On 5 November 1970, the applicant departed Korea enroute to the Continental United States (CONUS).

On 10 December 1970, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On 15 December 1970, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for a period of 6 years and assignment to the Republic of Vietnam.  At the time of reenlistment, the applicant had attained the rank of specialist/E-5 and had completed 2 years and 9 months of honorable active service.  He served in Vietnam from 10 March 1971 to 28 January 1972 with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  On 2 March 1972, the applicant was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  

On 26 May 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without 
leave (AWOL) from 1 to 15 May 1972 and two specifications of failing to go to his 

appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 16 and 17 May 1972.  His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to specialist/E-4 and forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for two months, suspended until 25 July 1972.

On 2 June 1972, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 14 August 1972.  He was returned to military authorities on 26 September 1972 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He was charged with being AWOL.

On 29 September 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200.  This request was made after counsel advised the applicant of the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment, and the possible effects of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant attested to the fact that he fully understood that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he may be deprived of many veteran benefits under state law.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he was experiencing family problems, difficulty adjusting to the Army’s new rules since his departure from Vietnam, and that it would be more beneficial to the Army if he were discharged.

On 24 October 1972, the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 was approved with a UD and reduction in rank to private/E-1.  Accordingly, on 24 October 1972, the applicant was discharged after completing 4 years, 2 months, and 29 days of active military service and accruing 131 days of lost time.

AR 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.

On 25 January 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge from undesirable to an honorable discharge.

The Board noted that when the applicant reenlisted on 15 December 1970, he had two periods of prior honorable service covering 2 years and 9 months and that he had been issued honorable discharges for each period of service.  In view of this, the Board certified each DD Form 214 as true copies and mailed them to the applicant.

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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions that an error was made on the separation documents or that he received an uncharacterized discharge, nor does the applicant provide any corroborating evidence to support his contentions.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged with a UD after requesting discharge under the provisions of chapter 10.

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.

3.  Furthermore, the applicant’s misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or honorable discharge.

4.  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	AR2000048316	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20010802	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721024	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.