MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 OCTOBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057231

	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:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning 		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and did not understand the consequences of his actions at the time.  He notes his only excuse for being AWOL (absent without leave) on two occasions was that he was immature.  He states that he has worked very hard since his discharge from the Army, is 50 years old now, and has no criminal record.  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He enlisted for a period of 3 years on 14 March 1969.  He was 18 years old at the time, with 8 years of formal education and a GT score of 107.

Following successful completion of basic training, the applicant was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland to attend AIT (advanced individual training).  On 1 June 1969, while undergoing AIT, the applicant departed AWOL. He returned to military control on 10 July 1969 and was convicted by a special court-martial.  

In September 1969 the applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky to complete advanced individual training as an armor crewman.  He successfully completed that training and in November 1969, while enroute overseas, he again departed AWOL.  He returned to military control in July 1971 and in August 1971, at the age of 20, departed AWOL for a third time.  He returned to military control in March 1972.

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 on his own behalf.

The medical history, which he submitted for his medical examination for separation, indicated his health was good and the evaluating physician found him medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

His request was approved and on 25 April 1972 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He received an undesirable discharge.

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.  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 contention that he has had 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

__JL____  __MDM__  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057231	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
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.