MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062564

	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	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 the characterization of his service be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he is enclosing his court-martial papers, highlighting the unjust part.  The applicant encloses a copy of a page (paragraph 18. Remarks), of an unidentified document.  This document concerns support of this applicant and the Operation 100,000 Program, and a recommendation that the applicant be given a general discharge based on unsuitability or a summary court-martial with a general discharge.  The officer signing the document cannot be identified as a member of any unit in which the applicant had served.  The applicant also states he wants an honorable discharge and that he would like to receive his benefits.

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

On 12 September 1967, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.

During the period 3 January through 11 April 1968, he was absent without leave (AWOL).

On 3 May 1968, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being AWOL for the period 3 January through 8 April 1968.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 4 months and a forfeiture of $25 pay per month for               4 months.  Effective 5 June 1968, the unexecuted portion of his sentence to CHL was suspended for 4 months, unless sooner vacated, and would be remitted.

During the period 8 June through 28 October 1968, he was AWOL.

During the period 12 November 1968 through 26 December 1969, he was AWOL.

During the period 29 December 1969 through 8 January 1970, he was AWOL.

On 7 January 1970, the commander, Special Processing Detachment, Fort Sill, Oklahoma preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 12 November 1968 through 26 December 1969.

During the period 19 January 1970 through 29 June 1971, he was AWOL.

In an undated letter, subject:  Certificate of Intent to Initiate a Bar to Enlistment or Reenlistment, the commander of the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill indicated the applicant had previously received a Summary Court-Martial at Fort Sill.  Details were not forthcoming and the documentation was not in the available records. 
On 29 June 1971, the commander, PCF, Fort Sill preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 19 January 1970 through    29 June 1971.

Although the documentation is not in the available records, evidence shows that after the commander preferred charges for AWOL, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 12 August 1971, he received an undesirable discharge under the above-cited regulation.  His discharge document indicates he had 5 months and 14 days of creditable service and 1201 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 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 inappropriate.

This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.  The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper.  There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.

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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequence of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under 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 evidence provided appears to be the last page of a Line of Duty Investigation; however, it is not possible to determine which, when, or for what offense it was prepared, since it is only a fragment of the document.

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 this 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

_rvo___  _dph____  _rjw____      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062564	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020409	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.