MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050401

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able 		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:  He was young and impressionable at the time and had serious problems with drugs and alcohol.  He states that he had no idea that he had received an undesirable discharge until he inquired about medical benefits from the VA.  In support of his request he submits two letters from friends who attest that he is a hard worker and conscientious man.

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

He entered active duty on 8 December 1972 at the age of 20.  He successfully completed basic training and in April 1973 was assigned to Fort George G. Meade, Maryland as a cook's apprentice.  

He was punished on two separate occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL) between May and July 1973.  Between 19 October 1973 and 
19 November 1973 he was AWOL three more times.

On 19 November 1973, when charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He did not submit any statements in his own behalf.

On 6 December 1973 his request was approved and the separation authority directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.  However, on 7 December 1973 the applicant again departed AWOL and he was ultimately discharged in absentia on 11 February 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 8 months and 24 days of creditable service and 160 days lost time.

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.  While the Board has considered the applicant’s age at the time of his military service and his good post-service conduct, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

3.  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.

4.  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

___jns___  ___rwa___  __mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050401	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010227	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.