MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071401

	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. 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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his offense occurred due to his immaturity at the time and his inability to cope with the stress of military life.  He goes on to state that when he realized the seriousness of what he had done, he feared the consequences of returning to the Army and worsened the results of staying away.  He further states that he believes his good record prior to enlistment and prior to his offense as well as his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade of his discharge.

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

He was born on 14 July 1948 and enlisted in Beckley, West Virginia, on 30 November 1973, for a period of 2 years.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as a baker.

On 2 April 1974, while still in AIT, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 2 May 1974, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Pompano Beach, Florida, on 24 April 1975, and was returned to military control at Fort Gordon, Georgia, where charges were preferred against him on 1 May 1975.

On 2 May 1975, 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 also admitted that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he hated the Army and believed that it had messed up his life.  He further indicated that he did not believe that a discharge under other than honorable conditions would have any effect on him and he did not care.  He indicated that he believed that he had no potential for rehabilitation and requested that the Army waive the 72-hour waiting period so that he could get out. 

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request on 20 May 1975 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 June 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 6 months and 15 days of total active service and had 357 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he 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 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 admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they 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 therefor 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.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him.  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 length of his absence as well as his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time. 

4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, he was 25 years of age at the time of his enlistment and was old enough to be responsible for his actions at the time.  Accordingly, the Board finds no evidence that is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

___ls  ___  ___pm__  __dh____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071401	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/06/11	
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.