MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067609

	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. W. W. Osborn. Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 general, under honorable conditions and that completion of a General Educational Development (GED) test be listed on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation of Discharge from Active Duty).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he chose to be absent without leave (AWOL) in order to force the chain of command into changing his military occupational specialty (MOS).  He asked several times during advanced individual training, but they would not give in.  He was young and immature and would not give in either.  He dates the discovery as 1971 and states that he did not realize the discharge could be changed, "plus I was stubborn…for a while." 

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

He enlisted on 1 October 1969 for guaranteed training as a communications center specialist (MOS 72B).  He was 18 years, 1 month and 8 days old and he had a 10th grade education. 

He completed basic combat training and started MOS training on 2 December 1970.  The applicant was AWOL from 6 January to 13 January 1970 and from 24 January to 6 March 1970, at which time he lost his designation as a MOS 73B trainee.  He was then AWOL from 7 March to 11 April 1970 and from 19 May to 18 August 1970.

A 5 October 1970 special court-martial convicted him of those four specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement for 4 months and forfeiture of $80.00 pay per month for 6 months.  On 22 December 1970 the unexecuted portions of the sentence were remitted.

Charges were preferred for AWOL from 6 February 1971 to 29 June 1971. 

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absence from his appointed place of duty on 15 and 19 January 1971.

On 29 June 1971, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged that he understood the nature and consequences of the other than honorable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

A 6 July 1971 separation medical examination found him to be qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

The separation authority approved the request and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.  On 16 July 1971 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 11 months of creditable service and 478 days lost.

His DA Form 669 GED Individual Record is blank except for identifying data.  There is no available evidence that the applicant either took or passed any portion of the GED tests.

On 6 July 1973 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to general.  The ADRB reviewed his record again on 2 November 1977 and denied relief under the provisions of the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP).

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.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments provides that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL offense of more than 30 days.

On 4 April 1977 the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems that may have contributed to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

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

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was 18 1/2 years of age at the time of his first AWOL and he had demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by completion of basic training.

3.  There is no available evidence and the applicant offered no argument to establish that his desire to change his MOS mitigates his repeated AWOLs.

4.  There is no available evidence that the applicant successfully completed any portion of a GED test. 

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

_TSK____  __ JTM__  __HBO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067609
	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	197	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Ch 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.