MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048744

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest 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:  That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he accepted a bad conduct discharge because he was in physical therapy five days a week for a back injury he received in basic training.  Although he was a conscientious objector, he was willing to serve.  He took the out with the understanding that it would be upgraded after one year.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 April 1969.  He applied for conscientious objector status on 9 May 1969.  He first departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 June 1969.  His request for conscientious objector status was disapproved on 30 July 1969.

On 29 July 1971, the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 21 October 1969 to on or about 21 December 1970 and from on or about 7 January 1971 to on or about 14 March 1971.  He was sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit all pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for 3 months.  

On 28 September 1971, the U. S. Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.  

On 8 November 1971, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his sentence by court-martial.  He had completed              3 months and 19 days of creditable active service and had 829 days of lost time.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The Board is not convinced by the applicant’s contention that he was willing to serve.  He departed AWOL almost two months before final action was taken on his conscientious objector status application.  Considering the length of his AWOLs, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.

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

__emw___  __amc___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200048744	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.