MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            9 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069138

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 he had desperate reasons for going AWOL (absent without leave).  He also states that he is presently unemployed and remembered that the Army can change his discharge.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 26 January 1968.  He completed his basic and advanced training as an Infantryman and he was promoted to private first class, pay grade E-3, on 1 August 1968.

He was reported AWOL on 6 November 1968.  

On 28 May 1969, he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 6 November 1968 to on or about 13 May 1969.  He was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the AWOL and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of pay for 6 months.  His sentence was adjudged on 28 May 1969 and approved on 4 June 1969.

He was reported AWOL from 8 to 28 August 1969.

He was reported AWOL on 10 September 1969 and dropped from the rolls on the same date.

On 8 December 1969, he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 10 September to 16 November 1969.

On 12 December 1969, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he stated that he had not been subject to coercion and had been advised of the implications attached to this type of discharge.  He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 29 December 1969, the appropriate authority approved his discharge.

He was discharged on 30 December 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in pay grade E-1, and he was issued a UD discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 2 months and 3 days total active service.  He had 272 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitation.

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 a UD.

This regulation also 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted his contention that he had desperate reasons for going AWOL.  However, his records do not show that his commander was aware of reasons for his AWOL and the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention.  The Board also notes that he was AWOL on several occasions, and that the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  The Board concludes that although the applicant may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

3.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a UD.  He was also afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

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

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
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_jhl____  _tlp____  _jns____        DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069138	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020509	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.