MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084099

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 that his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made a mistake by entering the Army 
at the age of 17 years old.  He adds, that he thought by doing so he would be solving his problems at home with his parents.  He states, that he was not yet ready for the type of responsibilities he incurred.  

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

On 13 April 1971, at the age of 17 years and 3 months, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years.  He completed his military training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K20 (Wireman).  On 9 July 1971, he was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for duty in his MOS.  On 13 October 1971, he was further transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado for duty.   

On 9 March 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 February to 7 March 1972.  His punishment included restriction for 30 days, forfeiture of $55.00 pay and reduction to pay grade E-2, suspended for 90 days.

On 23 June 1972, the applicant was charged with one specification of violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 1 May to 20 June 1972.

On 27 June 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 28 June 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to an undesirable discharge certificate (UD).  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD, and that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army Benefits, and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  The applicant submitted the following statement in his own behalf “…I like the Army, but the Army is interfering with my family life.”  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge.   

On 22 August 1972, the separation authority approved the request and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

On 30 October 1972, the applicant was separated, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 
1 year, 4 months and 25 days of creditable active service.  The applicant’s record shows that he had 64 days of lost time. 

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 an undesirable discharge.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, shows that a
punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL of more than 30 days.

On 20 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. 

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'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.  

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

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of enlistment; however, the applicant met the entrance qualification standards, which included the age requirements.  He demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by completion of training and approximately 10 months of service without an offense of record.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.  Therefore, his alleged immaturity does not excuse the misconduct for which he was separated and is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  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.

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

RVO          JPI             ECP           DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084099	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003.06.12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972-10-30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	AR 635.200	
ISSUES         1.	A71.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.