MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          7 October 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085455

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. 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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told his UD would automatically be upgraded to that of an honorable discharge within 90 days of his separation date. He submits in support of his request:  a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty); a Certificate of Achievement; a Diploma for completion of the Field Radio Mechanic Course; Basic Training Records; a Certificate of Appreciation for Volunteer Services in the Ministry; and Certificates of Ordination and other documents concerning the ministry.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:
That on 31 August 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required military training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Field Radio Mechanic).  On 17 February 1973, he was assigned to Germany.  On 22 March 1974, he was advanced to specialist, pay grade E-4.  This was the highest pay grade that he achieved.  

On 21 May 1974, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from his designated place of duty from 1300-1700 hours on 15 May 1974.  His punishment included the forfeiture of $188 pay per month for 1 month, reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 90 days) and 30 days of restriction.

On 23 June 1974, the applicant left his unit in an AWOL status and he remained AWOL until civilian authorities in Anaconda, Montana, apprehended him at the home of his girlfriend on 2 December 1974.  He was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Lewis, Washington, on 4 December 1974.

On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above period of AWOL.  On 12 December 1974, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that he could receive a UD.  He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He contended in a statement submitted in his own behalf that he joined to Army to obtain educational benefits.  His recruiter told him he would be trained as a radio repairman and he would work on radios for the next 3 years.  He was trained as a radio mechanic and assigned to an infantry unit in Germany, but the only work that he performed on the radios was dusting them off.  He had a wife and children and he was not informed that he 

would have to be a sergeant to get military housing.  He went to Germany and his wife got a job, but they still lost their home, car and the color television.  The day that he received his NJP, he informed his platoon sergeant that he was going to the bank and that he may be late coming back.  He stopped to get some cigarettes and the military police detained him for a uniform violation.  He was already having financial difficulties and the money that was taken from him made things worst.  The second time that he went AWOL was after he was served with divorce papers.  He went AWOL to try to save his marriage.

On 23 December 1974, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant's request for discharge be approved with a UD.  The commander cited the applicant's record as the basis for his recommendation and said that the applicant was a "first class manipulator" who desperately wanted out of the service and he believed the applicant would succeed one way or another.  The commander also stated that he did not believe the applicant could be rehabilitated.

On 13 January 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.  The separation authority also directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 24 January 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 11 months and 10 days of active military service. He also had 164 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

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 a UD.

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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board noted the applicant's explanation of having some hardships at the time of separation, but he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct that led to the separation action under review.

4.  The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

5.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his post service achievements. However, post service conduct alone does not provide a basis for the upgrade of a characterization of service.

6.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges or to accept requests for upgrade after a certain amount of time.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service, or the reason(s) for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

7.  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

__fne___  __slp___  __rld___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085455	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031007	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750124	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.