MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           29 January 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061470

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to one issued under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it has been over 30 years since he was discharged with a UD; that he has lived with this stigma too long; and that he believes he has shown his country and government that he is an asset and deserves a second chance.  He also believes his discharge to be inequitable because it was based on incidents that occurred over a short period of time.  He states that he has been a model citizen since discharge and that he has retired from the State of Washington Department of Corrections.  He provides no evidence in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 25 June 1969 and for training in Army Career Group 11/Armor.  Following completion of all required training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11D, Armor Reconnaissance Specialist, and was assigned to Germany.  The applicant served in Germany from 13 December 1969 to 28 July 1970.  

Following his tour in Germany, the applicant was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam.  However, on 6 September 1970, prior to reporting to Vietnam, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until 8 January 1971.  The applicant was charged with AWOL and was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 January 1971.  He was sentenced to 5 months confinement at hard labor (CHL) (CHL in excess of 30 days suspended for 5 months) and reduction to private/E-1.  The sentenced was approved on 26 January 1971.  After serving 25 days, the applicant was released from confinement and was sent to Vietnam.  He served there from 20 February 1971 to 15 August 1971.  

On 5 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month and 14 days of extra duty.

On 10 June 1971, the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month.

On 12 June 1971, the applicant accepted an NJP for disobeying a lawful command of a superior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $44.00 pay for one month, reduction to private first class/E-3, and 14 days of extra duty.

On 24 June 1971, the applicant was charged with one specification of leaving his post before he was relieved from duty, two specifications of AWOL for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and two specifications of disobeying orders by not reporting to guard duty.  The applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, the request is not in his Official Military Personnel File.  The chain of command recommended approval.

On 30 July 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request with a UD.  Accordingly, on 18 August 1971, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 24 days of creditable military service and accruing 150 days of lost time.

On 24 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UD to a GD.

On 15 August 1977, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s records under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP.

On 25 June 1985, the ADRB denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his UD.

On 9 February 1996, the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge; however, he was beyond the 15-year statute of limitations and was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief.

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 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.  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 requests a discharge upgrade based upon his successful transition to civilian life and his good post-service conduct.  Unfortunately, he provides no evidence in support of his request.  He provides no statements from friends, family, or employees; he provides no statements from clergy or his local police department attesting to his character.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant’s chain of command tried to assist him in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial and judicial punishment; however, the applicant failed to respond appropriately.

4.  The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct.  The Board determined that, even though the applicant’s misconduct happened in a short span of time, these numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.  

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

_aao____  __mhm__  ___kah__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061470	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710818	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.	144.7100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.