MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           27 NOVEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056915

	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. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that while at times he believes he should live with his actions, he does feel that he has done his time, stayed out of trouble, paid taxes, and tried to help out where and when needed.  He cites past presidential pardon actions and contends that what he did was not "anywhere close" to what those individuals, who received pardons, did.  He states that he put himself through a trade school, worked for the University of Oregon bowling alley from 1984 until 1999 when they removed the lanes and put in a computer lab.  He notes that in 1980 he wrote a manual about running a Century 2000 Lane and started a carpet-cleaning program at the University of Oregon.  The applicant indicates that he is not able to send in any statements of support because friends from his past have moved on and although he tried to locate them, he was unable to do so.  He states today he keeps pretty much to himself. He states the only reason he is asking for an upgrade is for himself, "nothing more."  He notes that he has lived with this for 29 years and has nothing to gain.  Other than his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 18 December 1970 at the age of 17, with 9 years of formal education, and a GT (general technical) score of 81.  He successfully completed basic training and in March 1971, while undergoing advanced individual training, he departed AWOL (absent without leave).  He returned to military control in April 1971 and was convicted by a summary court-martial.

The applicant then went on to successfully complete advanced individual training and in September 1971 was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas as a truck driver.  Prior to departing AWOL from Fort Hood, in May 1972, the applicant had received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  The applicant was dropped from the rolls of the Army in June 1972 and in September 1972 returned to military control.

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.  In a statement submitted on his own behalf, the applicant indicated that he started using drugs during advanced individual training and departed AWOL because his sister was pregnant and the father of the child would not marry her or support her.  He stated that while assigned to Fort Hood he continued to use drugs "because life was dull" and he finally "got tired of field duty" and departed AWOL again.  He indicated that he was requesting the discharge because he "couldn't stand going to the stockade."

His separation physical examination makes no mention of drug use and found him medically qualified for "duty or separation."

The applicant's request for separation was approved and on 25 October 1972 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.

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.  

The applicant's petition to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), to have his discharge upgraded, was denied in 1976, 1977 and after a personal appearance board in 1978.  Following his 1978 denial it appears that a Veterans' Service Organization requested a second personal appearance and included evidence that the applicant had some alcohol and anger issues which should have been taken into consideration by the ADRB.  There is no indication that a second appearance was granted.

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 claimed good post-service conduct, this factor, either individually or in sum, warrants 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

__AAO__  __LE  ___  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056915	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011127	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.