MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          28 October 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003086680

	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	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is trying to correct the mistakes he made earlier in his life.  He states that he was young and stupid when he committed his misconduct and that since 11 September 2001, the shame of his misconduct is unbearable. 

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1972 for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the station of choice enlistment option, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and airborne training duty option.  Following completion of all required military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman, and was assigned to Fort Bragg.

On 24 September 1973, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL).  The applicant remained absent until 2 October 1973.  On 10 October 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and 14 days’ extra duty.

On 24 October 1973, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go his appointed place of duty on 3 separate occasions.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3 and forfeiture of 7 days’ pay ($88.00).

On 27 December 1973, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until on or about 2 January 1974.

On 7 January 1974, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until 28 February 1974 when he was apprehended by civil authorities.  

On 12 March 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above two periods of AWOL.  On 20 March 1974, having been advised by counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulations 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf indicating that he wanted out of the military.  He stated that there was no reason for him to stay in the military because he had gotten a job while AWOL.  He stated that he was now out of debt, had a little money in the bank, and did not desire to be a Soldier any more. 

On 27 March 1974, the applicant’s chain of command recommend his request for discharge be approved with a UD.
On 28 March 1974, the applicant’s request for discharge was found to be legally sufficient.  The Deputy Post Judge Advocate recommended approval of the request and stated that the applicant had indicated that he would resist attempts at rehabilitation.

On 29 March 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with a UD.

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 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.  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, he 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.  

3.  The applicant’s recurring periods of AWOL totaling 66 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.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military 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

__rjw___  __lds___  __mjnt__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086680	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031028	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740410	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.