MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070753

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he enlisted in the Army only because he did not want to follow the rules at his mother’s home.  He states that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because he wanted to be there for his ex-wife who he believed was pregnant at the time.  He further states that, although it does not excuse what he did, he never thought to talk to anyone about what was going on in his life or to request leave.  He states that he was young and immature in his thinking and he really believes that he has learned from that part of his past.  In support of his application he submits a letter dated 14 February 2002; two letters dated 11 February 2002; and a letter dated 5 February 2002 from friends and associates attesting to his good post service conduct.

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

On 26 February 1985, he enlisted in the Army at age 20, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a food service specialist.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 16 October 1985, for being AWOL from 9 September until 8 October 1985.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 14 February 1986, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being absent from his unit from 11 November 1985 until he surrendered to military authorities on 12 February 1986.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, 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.  Along with his request for discharge he submitted a statement alleging that he went AWOL because he did not like his permanent duty station and could no longer cope with being in the military.  He also stated that he wanted to get out of the Army so that he could accept a college offer.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 21 May 1986.  Accordingly, on 23 April 1986, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, 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 9 months and 28 days of total active service and he had 122 days lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 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 applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.  

4.  He had 122 days of lost time due to AWOL and he submitted his request for discharge indicating that he wanted to get out of the Army because he could no longer cope with military life and he wanted to accept a college offer.  While the Board has taken cognizance of his good post-service conduct it also is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.

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

___dh___  ___fe ___  ___mm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070753	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850226	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.