MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           16 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002067809

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		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 (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That “A 19 year old kid made a mistake.  I wanted to vote in the 1968 election, but the Army wouldn’t let me.  They said I was too young.  My Dad was severely ill.  I had applied for a compassionate reassignment.  It was denied.  Even the people that ran to Canada and burned their draft cards have been given amnesty.  My God, it’s been over 30 years.  This is my 4th request.  Robert E. Lee wasn’t treated this bad.  Everyone that I’ve ever heard about from this era has been reunited with the country in some way or another.  The people that ran to Canada were given total amnesty.  A lot of people sit around and laugh about how they faked illnesses to avoid the war.  A 19-year old soldier made a mistake.  I was a true blue American kid.  I’ve never been in trouble in any way before this incident or afterwards.  I’m old, sick and homeless!  Let me die with dignity!”

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

On 18 July 1968, he was inducted into the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 18 November 1968.

During the period 25 December 1968 to 5 January 1969, he was placed on excess leave.

During the period 6 January 1969 to 21 February 1971, he was in absent without leave and desertion status.

On 11 March 1971, a physical examination cleared him for separation.

On 24 March 1971, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 6 January 1969 to 21 February 1971.

On 29 March 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.

On 17 May 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that an undesirable discharge be issued.
On 28 May 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with an undesirable discharge, under the above-cited regulation.  His separation document indicates he had 8 months and 20 days of creditable service, 782 days of lost time and 12 days of excess leave.

On 15 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

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

4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to cause the granting of his request.  There is no error or injustice.

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

_mmd____  _jtm____  _inw____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067809	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020416	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.