MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            6 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073314

	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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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: In effect, upgrade of his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he volunteered to go to Europe and his commander and first sergeant got upset with him and unleashed unnecessary pressures, which caused his demise.  Under conditions that soldiers were subjected to at that time, he believes he was singled out and given no other alternative.  This is an injustice that has damaged his entire life and still has a negative hold on the most positive thing he tries to do.  He states that he was denied his right to be a soldier and he has his patriotism to this country tarnished.

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

On 1 December 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Armor/Unit Supply Specialist).  He was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective     1 April 1973.

On 3 December 1973, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 10 August to               14 November 1973.

Although not in the available records, the evidence shows that 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 9 January 1974, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and directed that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.

On 21 January 1974, a physical examination and a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.

On 31 January 1974, the unit commander requested revocation of the approved Chapter 10 discharge for the applicant.  The applicant was AWOL on 6, 7, 8, 13 and 14 January 1974.  He was in military confinement during the period 15 to 17 January 1974.  He went AWOL again on 25 January 1974 and apparently returned on 11 February 1974, in time to be discharged.

On 11 February 1974, 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 10 months and 13 days of creditable service and 122 days of lost time.

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.

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.

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 applicant has provided no evidence to show his AWOL was caused by his chain of command.

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.

TERMINATION: 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____  _PM____  _DPH___   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073314	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020806	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.