MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 August 220                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072957

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		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 (UD) be upgraded to General, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was very young and was discharged because he got married without his commander’s permission and went on leave without permission.  He was young and dumb then.  He is now disabled.

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

He was born on 3 June 1953.

On 21 August 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army, when he was over 17 years of age.

During the periods 10 November 1970 through 12 February 1971 and               24 February through 17 May 1971, he was absent without leave (AWOL).

On 19 May 1971, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being AWOL.

On 25 May 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and that he had no desire to perform further military service.

On 26 May 1971, a physical examination cleared him for separation.

On 21 June 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and directed that a UD be issued.

On 23 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a discharge under conditions other than honorable, under the above-cited regulation.  His separation document indicates he had 4 months and 8 days of creditable service and 178 days of lost time based on the periods of AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good 

of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

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

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

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

4.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time, however, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was AWOL on two occasions for lengthy periods of time.

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

_LEM___  _TSK___  _FNE____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072957	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020813	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.