MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           7 February 2002   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060994

	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:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes his discharge should be upgraded to reflect the person that he is today.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:
That on 1 March 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed all of the required military training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 1320 (Field Artillery Crewman).  
On 18 July 1973, the applicant was assigned to the Panama Canal Zone where he served until January 1975.  There is no evidence that he experienced any difficulties during this period of service.  
On 26 February 1975, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On 2 April 1975, he was promoted to pay grade E-4, which was the highest pay grade that he achieved.  
On 19 May 1975, the applicant left his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and he remained AWOL until he returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 3 August 1975.

On 12 August 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above period of AWOL.  On 14 August 1975, 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 contended in a statement submitted in his own behalf that, prior to enlisting in the Army, he had a job hanging drywall a few days a week.  At age 18, he joined the Army so that he would have a better job and be able to travel.  However, while serving with his last unit, his feeling about the Army changed; someone was on his back 24 hours a day and he went AWOL because he felt like he had no freedom to express himself.  He stated that he had no real problems, but he "hated" the Army's system and he would go AWOL as many times as necessary or until his discharge was approved.  He also stated that he became depressed and short tempered when he became worried.  Therefore, he felt that a discharge was in the best interest of himself and the Army.

On 15 August 1975, both the applicant’s unit and intermediate commanders recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  On 20 August 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD and directed that the applicant be reduced from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1.
On 2 September 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 18 days of active military service.  He also had 76 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  

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.  Under normal circumstances, post service conduct does not provide a basis for the upgrade of a characterization of service.

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

__fne___  ___mkm _  ___le____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060994	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20020207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750902	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.