MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 August 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR200267565

	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 .Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that when he left Vietnam he was very sick with a nervous condition and was unable to think about the result of his action.      

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

On 10 April 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C10 (Service Vehicle Repairman).  On 19 June 1969, the applicant was discharged after serving 2 years, 2 months and 10 days of honorable active service.  On 20 June 1969, the applicant immediately reenlisted for 4 years.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

On 21 November 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for dereliction in the performance of duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $70.00 pay.  

On 30 April 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 February to 15 April 1970.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 3 months and a reduction to pay grade E-4.    

On 6 February 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of two specifications of being AWOL from 14 May to 7 July 1970 and from 
20 July 1970 to 5 February 1973.  

On 14 February 1973, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged.  The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.  

On 21 February 1973, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s numerous acts of misconduct. 

On 22 March 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.   On 23 April 1973, 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 a UD.  During this enlistment he completed 1 year and 6 days of creditable active military service with 1,033 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.  A UD discharge is normally considered appropriate.  

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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.

3.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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

5.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests. 

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

__JHL __  __ RVO  _  __BJL __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067565	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/04/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 144.7000		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.