MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066294

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely 		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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That his undesirable discharge is unjust because the Army was fully aware of the hardship conditions he was experiencing at home with his mother’s grave illnesses (diabetes and mental disorder).  He states, in effect, that initially he requested a compassionate reassignment to be closer to his ill mother, which was granted.  He also contends that he applied for a hardship discharge on four or five occasions.  He goes on to state that he went absent without leave (AWOL) for all the right reasons (to care for his ill mother) and only after he fulfilled his obligation in Vietnam.  In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 7 December 2001; and an undated attachment to his application.     

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

The applicant enlisted on 29 December 1967.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a radio operator.  He served in Vietnam from 18 June 1968 through 15 June 1969.  

The applicant’s military records show that he went AWOL on 11 November 1969 and returned to military control on 20 October 1975.  

There is no charge sheet in the available records.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are also not contained in the available records.     

On 22 October 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or lesser included offense(s), that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; and that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits.  He also acknowledged that he may be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law; and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, this statement is not contained in the available records.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 November 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 11 months and 9 days of total active service with 2132 days lost due to AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge.

On 20 October 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable or general. 

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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he applied for a hardship discharge on four or five occasions.  However, there is no record of evidence available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s claim of family problems which led to his decision to go AWOL.  However, these matters are not grounds for upgrading his discharge.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  

4.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation  appear to be appropriate.
5.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 2132 days of lost time and determined that his service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge. 

6.  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.

7.  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____  BJE_____  REB_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066293	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020418	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751117	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.