MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050246

	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. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was 17 years old, frequently in trouble with the law and made to join the service by his parents.  He states that he enjoyed his training at Fort Polk where he completed his General Educational Development (GED) for high school.  He claims that when he got to Fort Sill, he was told that he would be trained in electronics, but ended up in a small room with twelve guys playing with wire all day.  Further, he states that he attempted many times to get transferred and felt that he was being ignored.  After six months, he states that he tried to go home and was arrested for stealing gas, was returned to base and was discharged.  He contends that he was not treated fairly.  In support of his application, he submits a personal letter and a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 August 1972 for a period three years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma as a field wireman.  

During the period March 1973 through July 1973, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments for the following offenses:  (1) failing to go to his appointed place of duty; (2) failing to obey a lawful order issued by a specialist five; (3) wrongfully using provoking words towards a specialist five; (4) being absent without leave (AWOL) for two days; and (5) leaving his appointed place of duty.

On 6 September 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for six specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, for leaving his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL from 15 August 1973 through 4 September 1973 and for breaking restriction.

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses 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 (VA) if an Undesirable Discharge Certificate were issued.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 4 October 1973, the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.  The applicant was discharged on 5 October 1973 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 1 year, 0 months and 16 days of creditable service with 23 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

Prior to discharge, the applicant underwent a physical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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.

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

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 contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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____  ALR_____  GJW____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050246	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010327	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731005 	
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.