PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073306

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged and that his social security account number (SSAN) and date of entry are incorrect.

3.  The applicant states that he made some dumb mistakes as a young person and would like the chance to correct his military records.  He would like to have the typographical errors corrected on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 5 May 1972.  He provided three letters of support, two separation documents, two enlistment contracts, and a copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record).

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army on            25 March 1969 and was honorably separated on 28 April 1970, in pay grade E-3, for the purpose of reenlisting on 29 April 1970.  He was issued a DD Form 214 based on his discharge on 28 April 1970.  He reenlisted on 29 April 1970 for       4 years.

5.  On 12 November 1970, he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for his disobedience of a lawful order on 30 October 1970.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade   E-2 (suspended for 2 months), extra duty and a forfeiture of $32 pay per month for 1 month.  The record shows that a previous NJP was considered; however, there is no further record.

6.  On 14 April 1971, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 12 February 1971 and of disobeying a lawful order on 19 February 1971.  His sentence was a forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 1 month.

7.  On 23 July 1971, he was convicted by a Special Court-Martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 5 through 24 May 1971.  His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 14 days, and a forfeiture of $40 pay per month for 3 months.

8.  On 18 February 1972, a physical examination cleared him for separation.

9.  On 13 April 1972, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being AWOL for the period 23 August 1971 to 14 February 1972.

10.  On 13 April 1972, 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.
11.  On 17 April 1972, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.

12.  On 5 May 1972, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under conditions other than honorable and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, under the above-cited regulation.  His separation document indicates he had      2 years, 6 months and 21 days of creditable service and 204 days of lost time.  His DD Form 214 shows his SSAN containing a seventh digit as a 4 instead of a 9, and his date of entry on 25 March 1969 instead of 29 April 1970.

13.  On 20 November 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

14.  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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

2.  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.

3.  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.

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

5.  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 almost 21 years of age at the time of his application for discharge.

6.  The SSAN and his date of entry as shown on his DD Form 214, dated 5 May 1972 are incorrect and should be corrected accordingly.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the seventh digit of the SSAN of the individual concerned is “9” vice “4”, and that his date of entry is “29 Apr 70”, on his DD Form 214 issued on 5 May 1972.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

_MMD___  __RWA__  __CLG__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________ DENY APPLICATION

			Melinda M. Darby
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073306	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020820	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.