MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            20 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001058562

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  That he wishes to have his discharge upgraded so that he may receive medical care.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 October 1972, for a period of three years, at age of 19, with 11 years of education, for training as a radio specialist.

On 7 June 1973, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 May to 1 June 1973.  His punishment consisted of forty days extra duty and restriction and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months suspended for two months.

On 18 December 1973, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 27 October to 10 December 1973.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

Thereafter, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in the request that he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He indicated that he also understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he may be deprived of many or all Army, Veterans Affairs, and Federal and State benefits.  He acknowledged by his signature that he had consulted with counsel who had fully advised him in this matter.

In a statement supporting his request for discharge, he stated that he had enlisted for training as a radio specialist.  He reported for training but for nine months was unable to train because he was ineligible for a security clearance.  A background check had revealed that prior to enlistment he had been committed to a mental institution.  During the nine-months he was awaiting training, he claims that two psychiatrists examined him and recommended him for discharge; instead, he was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for training in another specialty.  He says that he was raised mostly in reform schools and detention homes prior to joining the Army.  He also said that he had a wife and a baby, but could not afford to have them near him, which was very important to him. He could not adjust to military life and wanted the discharge so he could govern his own life.

The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 11 January 1974, and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued. 

Accordingly, he was discharged on 15 January 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the 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 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.

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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of        AR 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.

2.  The applicant’s explanation that he lived in reform schools and could not adjust to the military is not sufficiently persuasive enough to upgrade his discharge.  Furthermore, he has provided no information concerning post service achievements that would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.

3.  The applicant’s records contain no evidence and he has provided no evidence to support his contention that he was recommended for discharge by two psychiatrists.  At the time, the applicant could have chosen to present his argument before a court-martial, but instead, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service apparently in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  In so doing, he admitted guilt to the charges against him.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.  Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharges merely to qualify an applicant for a benefit or program.

4.  It appears that the applicant elected to take the option of requesting an administrative discharge rather than risking the possibility of a greater sentence at trial.  There is no evidence to show that he was coerced by anyone into making this choice.

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

___le  ____  ___jns___  ___tbr _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058562	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110.02		
2.   		
3.   		
4.		
5.		
6.