MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001053293

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		                         Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was discharged without a medical, physical or mental evaluation.  When he was in the Army he was a practicing alcoholic.  He is now in recovery but is in need of medical benefits due to his previous abuse of alcohol.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 May 1968, was awarded the military occupational specialty of artillery surveyor, and was promoted to pay grade E-3.

On 7 October 1968 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 1 August to 3 September 1968, and from 14 to 16 September 1968.

On 3 April 1969 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 24 November 1968 to 19 January 1969.

On 10 November 1971 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 30 June to 28 October 1971, for being AWOL from 19 January to 2 November 1970; for being AWOL from 11 November to 9 December 1970, and for being AWOL from 13 December 1970 to 7 June 1971.

On 16 November 1971 the applicant was given a separation physical examination which included a mental status evaluation.  The applicant was determined to have no significant mental or physical defects.

On 17 November 1971 the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service.  Attached to his request for discharge was a statement containing matters of mitigation.  In that statement the applicant said that the reason he went AWOL was because he was not being paid by the Army and he had a wife to support and bills to pay.

That request was accepted by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 17 December 1971.  His separation documents show that he had a total of 1 year, 3 months and 3 days of creditable service, and 693 days of lost time.  His awards consisted of the Sharpshooter Badge with Rifle Bar, and the National Defense Service Medal.

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 and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not claimed innocence of the court-martial charges which led to his discharge, nor has he claimed that his rights in the discharge process were violated, other than not receiving a physical and mental evaluation to determine his fitness for separation.

2.  However, contrary to the applicant’s contention, he was in fact given a physical and mental status evaluations prior to his discharge.  Neither of those examinations uncovered any medically disqualifying condition.
.
3.  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

__jh_____  ___mhm_  ___ewl __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053293	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010801	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.