MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  19 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001051394

	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	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 28 May 1970 discharge under conditions other than honorable be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is a good member of the community and a family man.  He submits a letter from his mother and two character reference letters in support of his application.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 25 October 1966.  He completed training as a carpenter and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  On 14 June 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of 21 days AWOL.  The approved sentence included a forfeiture of pay and a one grade reduction to E-1.

The applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ on 22 August 1967, for 2 days AWOL.  He was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for 21 days AWOL in January 1968.  The punishment included 14 days hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.  On 24 May 1968 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of 97 days AWOL.  The approved sentence included 21 days confinement.  He was again convicted by a summary court-martial of 218 days AWOL on 10 June 1969.  The approved sentence included a one grade reduction to E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

On 6 May 1970 charges were preferred on the applicant for his AWOL from 6 September 1969 to 27 April 1970.  After consulting with counsel the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of trial by court-martial.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Effective 28 May 1970 the applicant was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 1 year, 7 months, and 16 days creditable service and 718 days lost time.  His reenlistment (RE) code was RE-4, which is a nonwaivable code for reenlistment.

The statement from the applicant’s mother mentions that he enlisted under another last name to avoid the stigma of his father’s background.  He is a married family man now for the past 24 years and he needs to have his discharge upgraded.

The two character reference letters describe the applicant as a law abiding citizen was has provided for his family and is honest and hard working.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Also noted in the available record are two additional discharges for the applicant. He enlisted again on 25 October 1972 stating that he had no prior period of active duty.  He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 14 February 1975, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, with 5 months and 17 days creditable service and 672 days lost time.

He enlisted again on 24 October 1978 stating that he had no prior period of active duty.  He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 January 1984, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, with 4 months and 8 days creditable service and 1,750 days lost time.

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 request for a discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service

3.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems and character reference letters are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

__js____  __be____  ___cg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051394	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700528	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.