MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  12 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000050612

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be 
upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded.
In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 26 August 1969 as an armor reconnaissance specialist.  He served in Vietnam from 14 February 1970 to 28 December 1970.

On 17 March 1971, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two specifications.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 April
to 5 May 1971 (23 days), from 7 May to 26 October 1971 (173 days), from 11 January to 6 September 1972 (151 days), from 20 October 1972 to 22 January 1973 (95 days), and from 5 February to 2 August 1973 (179 days).

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 7 August 1973
and was found qualified for separation.

On 15 August 1973, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 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 might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 27 August 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 31 August 1973.  He had a total of 2 years, 3 months, and 21 days of creditable service and 132 days of lost time due to AWOL prior to his scheduled expiration of term of service (ETS) and
489 days of lost time due to AWOL subsequent to his normal ETS.

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 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  The Board also notes the applicant’s excessive amount of lost time due to AWOL which is too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

3.  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.  

4.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

6.  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.

7.  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

__ra___  ___dh___  __rd____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050612	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010412	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730831	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.