MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           06 NOVEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062409

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and inexperienced when he entered the Army and that he made some bad decisions that have “haunted” him for over 20 years.  He states that he married the mother of his son only to discover that she was unwilling to travel with him while he was in the Army.  He notes that he departed AWOL (absent without leave) when he discovered that his spouse was being unfaithful and spending his support allotment on drugs and other men.  He states that he subsequently returned to his military duties but was then denied leave by his unit.  During the period he had requested leave, the applicant states that his mother died and that after she died he was never able to be part of his unit “knowing that (he) had a chance to see her alive and it was taken away from (him) by (his) unit.”

The applicant states he now has a wonderful family who “love and depend” on him and he would like to have his discharge upgraded to show them that he is someone they can all be proud of.  

In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant submits a 1996 certificate of achievement, a 1997 certificate indicating that he had successfully completed a “product assembler” course, and an undated certificate awarding him a high school GED (General Education Diploma).

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

The applicant entered active duty on 27 March 1978 at the age of 18 with 10 years of formal education and a GT (general technical) score of 108.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and in October 1978 was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He was promoted to pay grade E-2 in December 1978.

In May 1979 the applicant commenced a series of AWOL periods which resulted in his punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) on four separate occasions and conviction by a summary and a special court-martial.

The sentence from his special court-martial, which was adjudged in November 1981 and approved in January 1982, included a bad conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for 90 days.  Following his release from confinement, in February 1982, the applicant again departed AWOL.

The applicant’s bad conduct discharge was executed on 24 June 1982.  By the time of the applicant’s discharge he had accumulated more than 400 days of lost time and was nearly 23 years old.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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 applicant's discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable laws and regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  While the Board has considered the applicant’s age at the time of his military service and his good post-service conduct, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant, when only 18/19 years old, successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was promoted to pay grade E-2.

3.  The applicant has presented no evidence that there were any mitigating factors that would excuse, or justify, his more than 400 days of lost time.

4.  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 that requirement.

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

___DJ  __  __EJA __  __DPH __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062409	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	105.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.