MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084868

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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 be upgraded to a more favorable discharge that will enable him to obtain veteran's benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he needs another chance in life and that at the time, he was given no alternative, either sign the discharge or stay in prison.  It has been 30 years since his discharge and he desires to purchase a home using veterans benefits.

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

He enlisted in Wilmington, Delaware, on 30 April 1971, for a period of 2 years.  He underwent his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and his records show he went absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to 20 July 1971.  The record is silent as to any punishment imposed.  He completed his training and was transferred to Okinawa on 4 November 1971, for duty as a clerk typist.  

On 20 March 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.  However, they do show that he was pending trial by a general court-martial in April 1972 and that on 2 May 1972, the appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He directed that the applicant be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He also directed that the charges against the applicant be dismissed effective the date of his discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 May 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year and 17 days of total active service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was at that time and is still 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been considered by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished 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

__lf_____  __wtm __  ___le____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084868	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/05/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.