MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:           21 October 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003084845

	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:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believed that he was drafted "under the presumption of soundness per 38 CFR 3.304(b)" and that he was unaware of any type of mental issues at the time of his induction.  He states that he had never been treated for any psychological problems prior to induction into the Army and he had always considered himself to be normal.  

In support of his request, he submits a Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration Notice of Decision with supporting documents to include a psychiatric examination and determination.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the petitioner avers that he was suffering from mental disorders from a time prior to his indoctrination into the Army and that his record of misconduct was extenuated by the preexisting conditions of mental illness.

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

On 17 February 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  The applicant attained an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score of 27 and was placed in Category IV.

He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for basic combat training (BCT).  Upon completion of BCT, he was assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for advanced individual training (AIT). 

On 12 May 1969, while still in AIT, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until 15 July 1969 when he was apprehended by civil authorities in Topeka, Kansas.  He was returned to military control on 16 July 1969 and was confined in the post stockade at Fort Riley, Kansas.  Subsequently, he was assigned to the Special Processing Detachment (SPD) at Fort Riley.

On 9 August 1969, the applicant departed the SPD in an AWOL status and remained absent until 10 January 1970 when he surrendered to military authorities at Forbes Air Force Base, Topeka, Kansas.  On 11 January 1970, he was once again returned to the SPD at Fort Riley.

On 13 January 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for 2 specifications of AWOL and an additional charge of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 18 February 1970, the applicant 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 acknowledged that he had been advised of his rights by counsel  and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 February 1970, the applicant’s chain of command recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved with a UD.

On 2 March 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with a UD.  Accordingly on 13 March 1970, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 5 months and 21 days of creditable military service and accruing 219 days of lost time.

There is no indication in the available records that the applicant suffered from any psychological disorders at the time of discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, 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 UD was normally considered appropriate.

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 two lengthy periods of AWOL totaling 219 days constituted a serious departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  His misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant committed an offense for which the authorized punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice included a punitive discharge.  His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.
4.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, 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.

5.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's allusion to unspecified mental issues, but notes that he met entrance qualification standards, to include his AFQT score and that there was no indication in his induction examination that he suffered from any mental issues.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less qualified than other Soldiers with the same AFQT score who successfully completed military service.

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

__mhm___  __wdp___  __fcj___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031021	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700313	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.