MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067024

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went absent without leave (AWOL) because of problems that he was experiencing at home.

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

On 3 June 1970, he enlisted in the Army at Fort Polk, Louisiana, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a field artilleryman.  On 9 October 1970, he was transferred to Germany.

The applicant went AWOL on 1 June 1971 and he remained absent until 19 April 1972.

On 28 April 1972, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu to trial by court-martial.  Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he went AWOL because he shared a room with three other soldiers and the soldiers were not doing their share to help keep the room clean.  He also stated that he attempted to change jobs and all of his attempts were disapproved.  He concluded by stating that he was harassed whenever he applied for leave.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 5 May 1972.  Accordingly, on 12 May 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year and 22 days of total active service and he had 323 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant was experiencing problems at home when he went AWOL.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There is no evidence of record to support the applicant’s contention that he was experiencing problems at home at the time that he went AWOL.  In the statement that he submitted when he requested discharge, he stated that he went AWOL because of the three other soldiers that he shared his room with, because he continued to be disapproved when he attempted to change jobs and that he was harassed when he applied for leave.  There is no evidence to support those contentions as well.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.

5.  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.

6.  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

___sac__  __jm ____  ___kwl __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067024	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/05/72	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.