MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049305

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That during a hearing regarding his court-martial, the Judge Advocate General Officer pointed out that he should never have been inducted because his aptitude test scores were too low.

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

On 22 April 1969, he enlisted in the Army for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his basic combat training.

On 5 December 1969, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 July 1969 until 23 October 1969.  He was also charged with failure to go to his appointed place of duty; participating in a breach of the peace by waving sticks, throwing bunk adapters, and shouting; and being disorderly in camp.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

The request for discharge was initially disapproved because of the additional charges pending against him (breach of peace and being disorderly in camp).  However, the convening authority dropped the additional charges against the applicant on 10 February 1970.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 26 February 1970.  Accordingly, on 13 March 1970 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 7 months and 13 days of total active service and he had 101 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 2 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, the record clearly shows that the applicant was charged with being AWOL for 101 days.  He could have chosen to stand trial by a court-martial however, he opted to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although he may now believe he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

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

__hbo___  ___slp___  ____jh __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049305	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/03/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.  		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.