MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 November 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058344

	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. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was drafted into the Army.  While he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, he became stressed out and left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status when he received a letter from his wife stating that she was leaving him.  He does not believe that the actions that he took warrant the type of discharge that he received.

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

That on 5 February 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  After completing all required military training and being awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12A, (Pioneer), he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia.

On 19 July 1969, the applicant left his unit in an AWOL status.  During the time that he was AWOL, he was in civil confinement from 19 August 1969 to 16 September 1969.  The reason for the civil confinement is not a matter of record.  He returned to military control at the Fort Gordon Personnel Control Facility (PCF) on 18 September 1969.  

The applicant departed AWOL again from 21 September 1969-1 May 1970.  He was returned to military control at the PCF on 1 May 1970.  On 2 July 1970, while assigned to the PCF, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 19 July-19 August 1969 and 21 September 1969-1 May 1970.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 3 months, and to confinement at hard labor for 3 months. 

The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 27 July 1970-3 February 1971.  He was in military confinement from 3 February-29 March 1971.  On 30 March 1971, he was returned to duty.   

On 11 February 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 July 1970-3 February 1971.  On 3 March 1971, 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 11 March 1971, the applicant underwent a physical examination and he was determined to be qualified for separation.

On 16 March 1971, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  On 24 March 1971, his intermediate commander recommended separation with a UD.  On 26 March 1971, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.

On 1 April 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.  He had completed 5 months and 16 days of active military service.  He also had 562 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  Fifty-six days were lost subsequent to his normal expiration term of service 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 Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid 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 reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

4.  There is no indication that the applicant's AWOLs were due to personal problems.  However, even if such were the case, the applicant had many other avenues through which he could have obtained assistance without committing the misconduct that led to 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

___DSJ _  __EJA___  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

					

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058344 	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700709	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.