MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048819

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That after his return from Vietnam, while awaiting discharge, he was wrongfully ordered to mop floors by someone he did not even know and when he refused, he was given a bad discharge.  He further states that he served his country in war and peace and that he was unjustly given a bad discharge.  He also states that he is in need of medical assistance and desires an upgrade of his discharge in order to receive treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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

He enlisted in Louisville, Kentucky on 31 July 1969 for a period of 3 years and training in the mechanical maintenance career management field.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 17 January 1970 for duty as an engine and powertrain repairman.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 22 October 1970.

He remained in Germany until 13 January 1971 when he was transferred to Vietnam.  He arrived in Vietnam on 5 March 1971 and remained there until 21 August 1971 (5 months) when he was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Although the record of proceedings of nonjudicial punishment (DA Form 2627) are not present in the available records, there are orders present which indicate that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 12 October 1971 for misconduct that resulted in a forfeiture of pay.  

The applicant’s records also show that he went absent without leave (AWOL) on 7 February 1972 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at For Campbell on 27 July 1972.  He again went AWOL on 7 August 1972 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox on 16 August 1972.

The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records; however, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant.  It reflects that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 22 September 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 23 days of total active service and had 180 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His awards include the Vietnam Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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 was then and currently is normally considered appropriate.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  It appears that the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charges against him and his otherwise undistinguished record of service. 

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, not only are they not supported by the evidence of record, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his otherwise undistinguished record of service and the available facts of his case.

5.  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.

6.  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___  ___gp ___  ___dh___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048819	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/09/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.