MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060505

	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:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That about four weeks before his induction the law changed, allowing expectant fathers to be inducted.  When he was drafted, he had been married for just three weeks and his wife was expecting their first child. He had no time in which to establish a home for his family.  They were staying with his mother who was advanced in years and not capable of supporting others.  While in basic training, his wife was pressuring him to come home and stated that she would leave if he did not do so.  She threatened to divorce him and never let him see his child.  He was granted a leave when his daughter was born.  He reported back on time but his wife was still putting extreme pressure on him to come home, whatever the consequences.  He brought the situation up to the chaplain and his chain of command but no one seemed sympathetic to his plight. He decided to save his marriage so he left and went home.  He has regretted that decision ever since.  He has become a productive citizen over the years.  He and his wife have raised two daughters both of whom have attended college.  He and his wife have assisted veterans and have established the North Carolina Flag Day celebration.  He provides a letter from his wife, photographs/articles concerning the Flag Day celebration, and photographs/articles about his family as supporting evidence.  

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

He was inducted into the Army on 12 May 1970.  He completed basic combat training.  

On 21 October 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to on or about 21 September 1970.  He was sentenced to four months confinement at hard labor, suspended.  

On 16 June 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 14 November 1970 to on or about 15 June 1972.  

On 27 June 1972, 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant had interviewed with the commander of the U. S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Bragg, NC and stated at that time that he went AWOL due to his marriage problems and that his wife had threatened to leave him if he did not get out of the Army.  

On 14 July 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 31 July 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 7 months and 10 days of creditable active service and had a total of 579 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 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.  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.  

On 4 February 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.  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.

3.  The Board is sympathetic with the reasons the applicant gave for going AWOL; however, other soldiers in similar circumstances have successfully completed their terms of service.  The applicant made a voluntary decision to go AWOL and a voluntary decision to request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was aware of what the consequences of his decision would be.  While the Board has taken cognizance of his good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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

__cla___  __clg___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060505	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720731	
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.