MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  20 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001060049

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was unjust because he was young and immature and that his personal problems were the substantial reasons which led to his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), a personal statement, two certificates, and one character reference.

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

At the age of 19, the applicant was inducted on 10 November 1968, as a light weapons infantryman and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.

The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 28 May to 11 June 1969 (15 days).

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 28 July 1970, of being AWOL from 15 August to 16 December 1969 (96 days), from 17 to 25 February 
1970 (8 days), and from 17 March to 21 June 1970 (96 days).  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 90 days.

On 15 October 1970, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 9 to 15 October 1970 (6 days).

His DA Form 20 also shows that he went AWOL from 12 November to 10 December 1970 (29 days), 11 to 29 December 1970 (19 days), and 
pretrial confinement from 31 December 1970 to 4 February 1971 (36 days).

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 22 February 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 
2 years, 4 months, and 19 days of creditable service and had 334 days of lost 
time due to AWOL and confinement.

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

The applicant provides a character reference letter from an employer which states that he has a solid record of achievement and is a volunteer firefighter.  
He is a model employee and an asset to any employer.  He also provides a certificate to show that he was ordained a minister on 11 July 1996.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 an undesirable
discharge.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was unjust because he was young and immature; however, evidence of record shows that he entered active duty at the age of 19.  Evidence also shows that he was AWOL six times and confined for a total of 334 days.  Therefore, his age is not sufficiently mitigating in this case to warrant relief due to his numerous acts of indiscipline.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention and that his personal problems were the substantial reasons which led to his discharge; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s post service achievements; however, these achievements are not reasons to upgrade his discharge.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

5.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

6.  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.

7.  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

__jp___  __rs____  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060049	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710222	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.