MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          18 November 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087253

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he entered the military, at age 17, without consent of his parents.  He had never been one to get into trouble and he always tried to do his best.  He failed to complete the requirements of the radio training course and that he left his unit in an absent without leave status (AWOL) because the Army wanted to train him to be a cook.  He became disillusioned and angry with individuals in authority.  Much later in life, he has learned that he suffers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and he understands why he could not concentrate during the earlier stages of his life.

The applicant submits in support of his request a letter written by a veteran's coordinator at the Cornerstone Rescue Mission, South Dakota, dated 19 December 2003.  The coordinator states, in essence, he has worked with the applicant at the mission for approximately 1 year and that he is a compassionate and dedicated employee.  The applicant expresses remorse for his past military experience and he believes the applicant has probably suffered from ADHD since early childhood and that it provides a basis for upgrading his separation status.   

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

He was born on 7 October 1952.  On 9 December 1970, at age 18, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years under the Regular Army Enlistment Option.  No further information is available about his enlistment option.  He completed basic training at Fort Lewis, Washington, on 26 February 1971.  

On 1 March 1971, he was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for advanced individual training (AIT).  He was never awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).  He left Fort Jackson in an AWOL status from 18 March-21 March 1971.  On 23 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, the forfeiture of $70 pay per month for 2 months and 45 days extra duty and restriction (suspended). 

On 20 April 1971, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from his unit from 6-15 April 1971.  His punishment included the forfeiture of $70 pay per month for 2 months.  

On 11 November 1971, the applicant was determined to be medically qualified for separation.

The applicant was AWOL from 3 May-1 June 1971; 9 June-15 September 1971; and from 4 October- 6 November 1971 until he was returned to military control and assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Lewis, Washington.  On 16 November 1971, summary court-martial charges were preferred against him for these periods of AWOL. 

The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, the record does contain a written statement in which the applicant requests separation under the provisions of chapter 10, due to personal reasons and because of some job related issues.
The available record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of his separation.  The DD Form 214 shows that, on 3 December 1971, he was separated with a UD, for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed a total of 5 months and 1 day of active military service and he had 204 days of lost time.   The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was also AWOL 7-8 June 1971, there is no evidence that he was punished or charged with this period of AWOL.

The available evidence does not show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge under that board's 
15-year statute of limitations.

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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  Some of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, however, he was charged with the commission of three offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  He would have consulted with defense counsel and signed a statement indicating that he had been informed that he could receive a UD and that he understood the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  He would have voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.  The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  The applicant 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. 

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

__jns___  __mdm___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087253	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031118	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711203	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.