MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070210

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 to an honorable discharge (HD) and the narrative reason for his discharge be corrected to read hardship.  He also requests that his separation program number (SPN) be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his father’s health, the death of his mother, and being married with a new baby impaired his ability to serve in the Army.  He states that he served successfully in the Army and should not have to suffer a mistake for the rest of his life.  He further states that his service in Vietnam and the stress of his family problems warrants an upgrade of his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of support and his separation document (DD Form 214). 

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

On 31 July 1968, the applicant entered the Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 45K (Tank Turent Repairman).

The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five (SP5).  It also shows that he earned the following awards: Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and National Defense Service Medal.  

The record also shows that on 4 July 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 July 1971 to 19 October 1971.

The applicant went AWOL again from 15 November 1971 to 11 October 1972.  A court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  With his request he submitted a statement that he could no longer adjust to military life due to his father’s health.

On 3 November 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation request, directed that he receive an UD, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 8 November 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly, after having served a total of 3 years, 1 month, and 2 days of total active service and 433 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was assigned SPN 246.

Appendix A of Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, specifies the reasons for separation of members from active military service and the SPN to be assigned for these stated reasons.  The appendix of that regulation provides that a SPN code of 246 will be assigned when separation is under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to denote discharge for the good of the service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

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 UD.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his marital and family problems impaired his ability to serve in the Army.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

3.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  As requested by the applicant, the Board considered his good service during the enlistment under review and his Vietnam service.  However, the Board concludes that these factors alone do not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

5.  The Board notes that the applicant’s SPN of 246 was issued to him in accordance with applicable regulatory guidance and he has failed to show, through the evidence he submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the SPN issued to him is incorrect.  Thus, the Board concludes that the SPN is still appropriate and there is no basis for changing it at this time.

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

__MHM__  __KAN__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070210	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.