MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059976

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he enlisted under the guarantee program but the Army did not honor that guarantee.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1972 for training in Army Career Group 62 (Heavy Equipment Operations and Maintenance) and for airborne training.  He completed basic training.  On 29 March 1973, he waived his enlistment commitment for airborne training by personal choice.  

On 2 April 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 to on or about 9 April 1973.  

On 9 May 1973, the applicant completed advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 62K (Grader Operator).

The applicant departed AWOL 7 June – 16 July 1973, 23 – 25 July 1973,          13 August – 11 September 1973, and 15 October 1973 – 12 March 1974.  The court-martial charge sheet is not available. 

On 14 March 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 21 March 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The approval action is not available.

On 16 April 1974, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 9 months and        28 days of creditable active service and had 229 days of lost time. 

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.  A discharge UOTHC 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.  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 evidence of record shows that the Army honored all of the applicant’s enlistment commitments.  He was trained in Army Career Group 62 and was awarded MOS 62K.  He voluntarily waived his airborne training commitment.

3.  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.  Considering the length of his AWOLs, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.

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

___jns__  ___le___  __reb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059976	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010925	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740416	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.