MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          23 September 2003   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087365

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann		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 be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant did not provide a statement with his application.  The Board notes that the application indicates there were letters of recommendation provided in support of the applicant’s claim; however, these letters are not available for consideration.

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

The applicant enlisted on 28 June 1971 for a period of 2 years.  While in basic combat training, on 15 October 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 September 1971 to 19 September 1971.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 7 December 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 15 November 1971 to 22 November 1971.  He was sentenced to forfeit $150 for one month and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.  On 
8 December 1971, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement for 90 days.

The applicant went AWOL on 1 January 1972, he was apprehended by civil authorities on 10 June 1972 and was returned to military control on 12 June 1972.  

The available records do not contain a Charge Sheet or the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  However, the available records show that the applicant’s intermediate commanders recommended that his request for discharge be approved.  On 3 July 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

The applicant was discharged on 28 June 1971 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 6 months and 21 days of total active service with 
176 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 1 July 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case under the Special Discharge Review Program and denied his request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

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 an undesirable discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 reviewed the applicant’s brief record of service which included one summary court-martial, one nonjudicial punishment, and 176 days lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The Board also determined that his military service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge. 

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  

4.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation appear to be appropriate.  

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

JLP____  AAO_____  PHM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087365	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710628	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.