MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070356

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 to an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he successfully completed one period of enlistment and that he was allowed to reenlist while he was in Vietnam.  He states that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) while he was in Vietnam and that he later found out that orders were never published awarding him ARCOM.  He states that he was scrutinized by his chain of command and was ordered not to wear the ARCOM because there was no record of it ever being awarded to him.  He further states that his feelings towards the Army changed; therefore, he decided not to report to Germany and to absent himself without leave (AWOL).  He stated that he was a good soldier up until he went AWOL.  He admits to receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP); however, he states that he was young and that he learned from his experience.  He states that he believes that the Army’s decision was correct; nevertheless, he has been punished enough and he deserves to have his discharge upgraded.  He concludes by stating that since his discharge he has attempted to be a good citizen, maintain steady employment, and contribute to his country by paying his fair share of taxes.

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

On 29 June 1965, he enlisted in the Army in Charlotte, North Carolina, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a pioneer.

On 11 December 1965, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair at his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 20 April 1966, he was transferred to the Republic of Vietnam were he served for 18 months.

He was honorably discharged on 8 December 1967, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment and on 9 December 1967, he reenlisted for 6 years in the pay grade of E-4.

The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent; however, he went AWOL on 15 July 1969 and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities on 7 June 1973.  At the time of his surrender, he stated that he went AWOL because he did not want to report to Germany and because of a misunderstanding regarding his orders and records.

Charges were preferred against him on 8 June 1973, for being AWOL from 15 July 1969 until 7 June 73.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 21 June 1973.  Accordingly, on 22 June 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 4 years and 29 days of total active service and he had almost 4 years of lost time due to AWOL.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 2 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his extensive absence and his overall record of service.

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

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

___ls  ___  ___pm __  __dh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070356	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/06/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.