MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 December 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071572

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, there is no error in his discharge but that at age 17 he had never been away from home before and had a hard time adjusting to military life.  He states that, since his discharge, he has matured, raised six children, and has been a good person.  He indicates that he needs his discharge upgraded to allow him to receive medical assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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

The applicant entered active duty at age 17, on 8 July 1961 and completed basic combat training and advanced individual training. 

He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on three occasions, once for failure to obey a lawful order and twice for being absent without leave (AWOL).  

On 19 February 1962, a special court-martial (SPCM) found the applicant guilty of 50 days AWOL.  On 15 May 1963, a second SPCM found him guilty of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, breaking restriction, and 3 days AWOL.

The applicant went AWOL and/or was confined again from 15 May 1963 through 8 August.  The record does not contain the specifics of this period.

On 20 August 1963, the applicant's command commenced discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-208, for a pattern of misconduct.  His command cited two NJPs, three periods of AWOL (with 79 days of lost time), two SPCM convictions, and two letters of indebtedness.

After consultation with military counsel the applicant acknowledged and waived his right to be represented by counsel, to submit a written statement on his own behalf, and to have a hearing before a board of officers.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an undesirable discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 

The discharge authority approved the separation under Army Regulation 635-208 on 12 September 1963 with an undesirable discharge.  

The applicant was discharged on 4 October 1963.  He had 1 year, 9 months, and 14 days of creditable service with 168 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age and his reported good post-service conduct; neither of these factors, either individually or in sum is so meritorious as to warrant the relief requested.

2.  Entitlement to VA benefits is not within the preview of this Board nor is it normally considered a basis for granting relief.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

_LLS____  ___WDP_  _BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071572	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021217	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.