MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 October 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083904

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was very immature.  He realizes that he made a mistake and he respects the Army more than ever.  In support of his request, he submits four statements that were written by individuals that have known him for many years.  All four statements refer to the applicant as being a kind, caring, giving person.  He freely gives of himself and helps others by doing volunteer work in his community.

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

That on 24 September 1974, both parents signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military.  On 4 October 1974, at age 17, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On the same date he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for completion of basic combat training (BCT).  

The applicant left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from 
18 October-26 November 1974.  On 26 November 1974, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL.  His punishment included the forfeiture of $77 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of extra duty and restriction. 

On 6 December 1974, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, for completion of advanced individual training (AIT).  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  

On 7 February 1975, the applicant left Fort Hood in a casual leave status.  He went into an AWOL status from 11 February-4 March 1975, when he failed to return to Fort Hood for permanent duty.  On 11 March 1975, NJP was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, the forfeiture of $80 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty (suspended for 6 months).

The applicant left his unit in an AWOL status from 6 April-23 June 1975.  On 
26 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against him for this period of AWOL.  On the same date, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that separation under chapter 10 could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 27 June 1975, both a mental status evaluation and a medical examination determined the applicant was qualified for separation.

On 8 July 1975, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved.  The applicant's commander stated that the applicant had become disenchanted with the military and further retention would not be in the interest of the Army.  On 10 July 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, shows that, on 15 July 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  He had completed 7 months and 25 days of active military service and he had 48 days of recorded lost time.

There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant 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 that 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 the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process.  He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was immature at the time that he enlisted.  However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with a waiver.  The Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both appropriate.

5.  The applicant’s post service achievements are commendable, but they do not overcome the seriousness of the offense for which he was discharged.

6.  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

__kan___  __le____  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083904	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031002	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750715	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.