MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057466

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his ability to serve in the Army was impaired due to his age and marital problems.  He states that before his separation from the Army he was trying to be a good soldier.  He further states that the only evidence that he has to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge is his prior honorable service.  In support of his application, he submits a certificate of training (Postal Operations Course), a copy of his honorable discharge certificate, dated 4 April 1971, and a copy his undesirable discharge certificate.

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

On 3 July 1969, he enlisted in the Army for a period of 3 years.  On 4 April 1971, he was honorably discharged and on 5 April 1971, he immediately reenlisted.  He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 71F (Postal Clerk) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4.

On 23 March 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. 

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows that on 26 May 1972, he was administratively discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for conduct triable by court-martial.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and at the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 2 years, 9 months and 12 days of active military service.

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 court-martial charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within 15-year statue of limitations.

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 record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature, and contains the authority and reason for his separation.  Therefore, the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The separation document confirms that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Procedurally, this would have required him to consult with legal counsel after being charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  In addition, he would have had to voluntarily request separation after admitting guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his age and marital problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army is not supported by the evidence of record or the independent evidence he submitted with his application.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s prior honorable service as he requested; however, it concludes that the misconduct which led to his separation in lieu of trail by court-martial was not outweighed by prior service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

5.  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

___CLA__  __CLG__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057466	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/09/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720526	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Separation in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1 93.01	70.00	
2. 93.07		
3.92.19 		
4.		
5.		
6.