MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069868

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a young naïve enlisted member and he was afraid that if he did not choose between court-martial and the discharge, he would end up at Fort Leavenworth.

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

He enlisted in Albany, New York, with parental consent on 15 March 1971, for a period of 3 years.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo his basic combat training (BCT).

On 26 April 1971, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 1 May 1971.  He again departed AWOL on 20 May to 19 August 1971, 2 September to 14 September 1971 and 21 September 1971 to 16 February 1972, when he was apprehended by civil authorities and was returned to military control at Fort Dix, where charges were preferred against him.

On 20 March 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He also indicated that he understood the unlikelihood of any agency ever upgrading his discharge and that he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life where his discharge was concerned.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 6 April 1972 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 3 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 5 months and 7 days of total active service and had 257 days of lost time due to AWOL.

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 19 July 1974, contending that he was not sufficiently mature at the time to face the responsibilities of military duties and contended that it was unfair for him to have his whole future affected by a bad discharge.  The ADRB determined that the applicant had been properly discharged and denied his application on 30 December 1974.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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.  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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the number and length of his absences as well as his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

4.  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.

5.  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

___rwa__  ___jm___  __rvo____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069868	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/05/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.