MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            31 July 2003      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085197

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  His ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity and his family and personal problems.  He was under a stressful situation.  He left to take care of his mother when she was ill and his girlfriend when she was pregnant because he could not wait for official permission.  He provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and 8 letters from friends as supporting evidence.  

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

He was born on 13 March 1954.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 June 1972.

On 29 August 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 1 August to on or about 28 August 1972.  

On 22 September 1972, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 31 August to 7 September 1972 and of breaking restriction. He was sentenced to extra duty for 30 days and to forfeit $190.00 pay.

On 23 May 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from on or about 19 March to on or about 9 April 1973 and from on or about 10 May 1973 to on or about 15 May 1973. 

On 24 May 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

On 1 June 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 18 June 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 10 months and 7 days of creditable active service and had 68 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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.  

Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 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.  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.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was  18 years of age when he enlisted.  There is no evidence of record to substantiate his contention that he had family and personal problems.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement with his request for discharge wherein he could have explained the reason he went AWOL.  He failed to do so.  There is no evidence of record to show he attempted to obtain official permission before attempting to resolve his problems through going AWOL.  

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the letters provided by the applicant in support of his application and his contention that he has been a good citizen since his discharge, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  The quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that an honorable characterization of service would be warranted.  Neither was his military record sufficiently satisfactory to warrant a general discharge under honorable conditions.

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

__gjw___  __kah___  __rd____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085797	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030731	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730618	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.