MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          16 September 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083912

	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:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 essence, that the characterization of his service be changed from "under other than honorable conditions" and the undesirable discharge (UD) that he was issued be corrected to show he received a fully honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was uneducated, young and immature when he was given the opportunity to reenlist.  He was then allowed to take 30 days of leave; he went home and made a bad decision.

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

At age 17 years and 8 months, he enlisted on 21 May 1970 in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years with a declaration of parental consent signed by his mother.  Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and ordered to Vietnam.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 - 23 October 1970, but there is no record of punishment.  He arrived in Vietnam on/about 31 October 1970 and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry.

While assigned to Vietnam, the applicant reenlisted on 8 March 1971 for a period of 3 years in his present duty assignment, in MOS 11B, and in pay grade E-3.  He was given a reenlistment leave outside of Vietnam.  When he failed to return, he was declared AWOL on 10 April 1971.  He was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Jackson on 12 May 1971, but he went AWOL again from 28 May - 1 June 1971.  The record is unclear, but on an unknown date, while he was AWOL, he was apprehended by civil authorities for charges of possession of narcotics and breaking and entering.  The civilian charges were dropped; the applicant was returned to the PCF and the commander preferred court-martial charges against him.

The court-martial charge sheet is no longer a matter of record, but on 2 June 1971, the applicant 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 (AR) 635-200.  He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 4 June 1971, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service be disapproved and that he be tried by a special court-martial.  The intermediate commander also recommended disapproval and trial by a special court-martial.

On 15 June 1971, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended approval of the applicant's request.  On the same date, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD.

On 23 June 1971, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UD.  He had completed 2 months and 10 days of active military service on the enlistment under review and he had 38 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  He had also completed 9 months and 10 days of active military service on a prior period of enlistment.

On 19 February 1975, as a result of a records review, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 9 September 1977, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of the Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).  

AR 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'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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant was AWOL from a combat zone and he has provided no mitigating circumstances for this absence.  This is a serious offense which together with his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

4.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature, however, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with parental consent and he honorably completed a period of service and reenlisted.  Further, 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.  

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

__fne___  __mhm___  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083912	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030916	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710623	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.