MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          30 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003085936

	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. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and that he was told that his characterization of service was going to be under honorable conditions.  He also states that his discharge was supposed to be mailed to him; however, he never received it.  He states that, after 24 years of waiting, he finally requested it through the National Personnel Records Center online service.  He further states that he was surprised to see that his characterization of service was UOTHC.  

He submits a statement in his own behalf and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

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

On 21 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He enlisted for the Cash Bonus and the Unit of Choice (XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery) Enlistment Options.  Following completion of all required military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B, Field Artillery Crewman, and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 25 December 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $89.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days’ extra duty (all suspended for 90 days).

On 10 January 1975 the applicant was promoted to private first class/E-3 and on 1 September 1975 he was promoted to specialist/E-4.

On 7 April 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month and reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended for 60 days).

On 24 August 1976, the applicant departed the United States en route to Germany and arrived in Germany on/about 25 September 1974.  He was assigned to Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 75th Field Artillery, Bamberg, Germany.

On/about 14 May 1977, while home on leave from Germany, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 17 July 1977 at Fort Bragg.  He was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Bragg.
 
On 22 July 1977, while assigned to the PCF at Fort Bragg, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until civil authorities apprehended him on 29 May 1978 and returned him to military authorities on/about 4 June 1978.

On 13 June 1978, the applicant was charged with 2 specifications of AWOL.  On the same date, after being advised by counsel of his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service.  The chain of command supported the approval of the applicant’s request, recommending a UOTHC discharge.  

On 20 June 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  Accordingly, on 29 June 1978, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 381 days of lost time due to AWOL.

Army Regulation 635-200, 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 UOTHC 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 Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Additionally, there is no indication in the record that the applicant was told he would receive an under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The applicant’s two lengthy periods of AWOL totaling 381 days constituted a 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.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or honorable discharge.  

4.  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

__rjw___  __mhm___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085936	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030930	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780629	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0133	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.