MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049822

	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. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 he be furnished a Clemency Discharge pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while he was in the Army and that he has documentation to support his contention.

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

On 24 September 1968, he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1, in Boise, Idaho.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 29 January 1969.

On 9 May 1969, he was order to active duty for training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 6 June 1970 and went on to successfully complete his training as a pioneer.  He was released from active duty to complete his Reserve obligation on 8 September 1969.

On 12 December 1972, the applicant was involuntarily ordered to active duty for 18 months and 4 days at Fort Ord, California.  However, instead of reporting to active duty, he went absent without leave (AWOL).   

In a letter dated 6 March 1974, while he was AWOL, the applicant contacted the Office of the Secretary of Defense stating that in 1971 he asked to leave the Reserve and instead of being discharged he was activated into the Regular Army. He stated that he refused to serve because of personal principles.  

The Deputy of Staff for Personnel (Separations and Retired Affairs) notified the applicant by a letter dated 20 March 1974, that no action could be taken on his request for separation while he was in an AWOL status.  He was also told that no statement could be made regarding the action which would be taken against him upon his return to military control since the appropriate field commander would decide what disposition would be made in his case.  The applicant was informed that he should report immediately to the nearest military installation.

It appears that the applicant never received the notification letter because he had already surrendered to military authorities at Fort Lewis, Washington on 13 March 1974 and he was placed in pretrial confinement.

On 27 March 1974, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 26 April 1974 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.  Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he indicated that it was a mistake for him to join the Reserve as he has always had a problem with people in authority.  He stated that staying in the Army would not benefit him in any way and that he contributed his wife’s request for a divorce to his being in the Army.  He further stated he and his wife would have a chance of reconciliation if he were to be discharged from the Army and returned home to complete college.  He also stated that he could get a good paying job with a construction company if he could get home before students began looking for work.  He concluded by stating that he needed to get home to his family because his father was killed in a logging accident and he needed to support his mother and help raise his eight brothers and sisters.  He also submitted statements from his family members and friends requesting that he be discharged from the Army.

His request for discharge was initially denied on 7 May 1974 because the commanding officer found that to grant such a request would not be in the best interest of insuring justice and preserving discipline in the Army.

However, the request for discharge was reconsidered and the appropriate authority approved the request on 5 June 1974.  Accordingly, on 7 June 1974, 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 6 months and 18 days of total active service and he had 463 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The evidence of record fails to show that the applicant was suffering from PTSD while he was in the Army.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever 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 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.

Presidential Proclamation (PP) 4313 issued by President Ford on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former solders who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for former soldiers who received less than honorable discharges for AWOL-related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Upon successful completion of the alternate service, former members would be granted a “clemency” discharge by the President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil rights.  However, the clemency discharge did not affect the underlying discharge and did not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  Soldiers who were AWOL entered the program by returning to military control and accepting a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

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 applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he had no desire to remain in the Army.  He was AWOL for 463 days and upon his return to military control, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The evidence of record fails to show that the applicant entered into and completed an alternate restitution program which would have afforded him the opportunity to be granted a clemency discharge.  Additionally, there is no evidence of record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that he was suffering from PTSD while he was in the Army.

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

___slp___  ___rks __  __jpi____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049822	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/06/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.