MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 February 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065228

	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. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant makes no further statement and provides no supporting evidence.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 1 June 1971.  He completed basic combat training.  

The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 7 September 1971 and returned to military control on 11 April 1972.  

On 18 April 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 24 April 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL from 7 September 1971 to on or about 11 April 1972. 

On 27 April 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 under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he could not adjust to the military and he would be a disgrace to the military.  He had family problems and he wanted out of the Army so he could financially support his mother.  

On 2 May 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 10 May 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 an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He had completed 4 months and 6 days of creditable active service and had 217 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

On 24 April 1979, 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.  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

__jh____  __kak___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065228	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020205	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720510	
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.