MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          23 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003084087

	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. Carolyn Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, 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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was erroneously inducted into the Army.  He states that his eyesight has always been less than the minimum requirement of the Army.  He states that his vision has always been less than 20/400.  He states that his military records show that his vision was corrected with eyeglasses.  However, he believes that this disability (amblyopia, i.e., lazy eye) is not correctable and never has been.  He states that he provided proof at induction and was inducted anyhow.  He states that attempts to correct his vision ultimately led to his discharge.  In support of his application, the applicant provided 7 pages of medical documents referencing his eye condition.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 July 1970 for a period of 2 years.  He was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for basic combat training.  

On 10 August 1970, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until on or about 7 September 1970.  On 8 September 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for this period of AWOL.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $62.00 pay per month for 2 months and 2 hours of extra duty per day for 45 days.

The applicant departed his unit AWOL on 20 September 1970 and remained absent until 17 October 1970.  

On 3 March 1971, the applicant again departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 29 March 1972 and returned to military authorities on 30 March 1972.

On 3 April 1972, the applicant indicated on a statement concerning his AWOL that he understood his rights and he willingly waived his right to counsel.  

On 18 April 1972, the applicant voluntarily requested to be placed on excess leave status pending approval of his discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, or AR 635-206, or AR 635-212.  On 19 April 1972, the applicant was placed on excess leave until 2 May 1972.  The applicant failed to report and was once again listed as AWOL on 3 May 1972.  

On 12 May 1972, the applicant was discharged in absentia from the Army under the provisions of section VII, paragraph 45b, AR 635-206 with a UD.  He was credited with 7 months and 15 days of creditable military service and 432 days of lost time due to AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further service.  It stated that action would be taken to separate a soldier for unfitness when it was clearly established that:  (1) despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual as a satisfactory soldier, further effort would be unlikely to succeed; or (2) rehabilitation was impracticable or the soldier was not amenable to rehabilitation measures (as indicated by the medical and/or personal history record).  An undesirable discharge was mandated.

There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board prior to its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions and finds them unsupportable by the record.  The record does not show that the applicant was erroneously inducted into the Army, or that his left eye failed to meet Army standards for induction, or that his discharge was the result of attempts to correct the vision in his left eye.  However, the record does show that, with correctable lens, the applicant’s sight was within Army standards.  The record further shows that the applicant was discharged because he went AWOL almost immediately after being inducted and that he repeatedly demonstrated that he did not desire to stay in the Army by continually departing his unit in an AWOL status and amassing 432 days of lost time.

3.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s overall quality of service as well as his misconduct.  The Board determined that his numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.  

4.  The Board concludes that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

__jlp___  __aao___  __phm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084087	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720512	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.