MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:            

	BOARD DATE:           15 November 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058209

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was drafted and he did not understand why we were at war.  He understands that leaving his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status was wrong.  Now he is disabled and he needs help from his government.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 14 April 1971.  He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for basic training.  Following basic training, he was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana for advanced individual training with a reporting date of 2 July 1971.  He did not report to Fort Polk and was placed in an AWOL status on 2 July 1971.  He remained AWOL until 28 May 1973 when he was returned to military control and assigned to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Dix.

On 11 June 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 2 July 1971-28 May 1973.  On 12 June 1973, the applicant underwent a physical examination that determined that he was physically fit for separation.  On 14 June 1973, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that he could receive a UD.  He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 July 1973, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  On an unknown date, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.

On 27 August 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UD.  He had completed 5 months and 17 days of active military service.  He also had 652 days of lost time prior to his expiration term of service (ETS) date due to being AWOL and 45 days of lost time subsequent to his ETS date.

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 a UD.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board sympathizes with the applicant in that he is disabled; however, the applicant's extensive period of AWOL was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and does not 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

__INW___  __SK___  __KAH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058209	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730827	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.