MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            8 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049663

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young, immature and used poor judgement when he entered the service.  He contends that he abused drugs on a regular basis, was a habitual AWOL offender and was forced to go home to take care of his pregnant girlfriend.  In support of his application, he submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 21 October 2000.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 21 August 1970 for a period of three years. He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for basic combat training (BCT).  

Evidence of record shows the applicant went AWOL on 28 August 1970.  He was dropped from the rolls on 28 September 1970 and returned to military control on 30 September 1970 (33 days).

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 October 1970 to 25 September 1971 (252 days).

The applicant’s records contain a FBI report, dated 25 August 1971, which shows he was arrested by civil authorities on 15 July 1971 for the possession of stolen property.  This report also shows he was arrested by civil authorities on 12 August 1971 (charge unknown).

On 5 October 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all 
benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation. 

On 11 November 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.  The applicant was discharged on 24 November 1971 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 2 months and 13 days of creditable service and 285 days of lost time due to AWOL.
On 11 September 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.  

Army Discharge Review Board Case Report and Directive in the applicant’s records shows he was AWOL twice for 63 days; dropped from the rolls for 276 days; confined by military authorities for 59 days and confined by civil authorities for 45 days for a total of 443 days of lost time.  The report indicated that these periods of lost time were “based partly on applicant’s testimony.”  

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 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.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the 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

RWA_____  WDP_____  BJL_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049663	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010308   	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711124	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the Service-in lieu of trial by Court-Martial 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.