MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          13 November 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087877

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 a letter, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he enlisted with honorable intentions and he is still motivated and willing to serve.  He was advised he could request that his discharge be upgraded 6 months after he was separated.  He is not seeking veterans' benefits.  He believes that his discharge should be upgraded due to the following reasons:  his ability to serve was impaired by his youth, immaturity and personal problems; while he was home on ordinary leave, his father experienced a heart attack and he did not know how long he was going to live; he asked for and was denied both additional leave and a hardship discharge.  He believes his UOTHC discharge is severe by today's standards given his circumstances.  He has served as a chaplain for the local Civil Air Patrol program, for several veterans' organizations, and for several community organizations since being discharged.  Prior to this appeal, he requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgrade his discharge and he was advised that his application was not filed within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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

On 1 February 1980, at age 20, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on 5 May 1980.  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 23 July 1980, the applicant went into an absent without leave (AWOL) status. On 24 November 1980, the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities in Washington State and turned over to military control at Fort Lewis, Washington.  On 25 November 1980, he was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Ord, California.  On 23 December 1980, the applicant declined a physical examination.

Charges were preferred for the above AWOL offense and, on 14 January 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 16 January 1981, a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.  

The applicant's commander recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.  The commander stated the applicant's pattern of behavior indicated that retention was neither practical, nor desirable.  The applicant stated to his commander that he went AWOL because he did not like military people or large groups of people and that he would leave in an AWOL status again, if returned to duty.  The applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 19 February 1981, the approval authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay grade E-1.  

The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated on 13 November 1981 under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge due to conduct triable by a court-martial.  He had completed 9 months and 15 days of active military service. He had 125 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

In March 2003, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.  The applicant was notified that his application was not filed within that board's 15-year statute of limitations and would not be considered.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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 applicant voluntarily requested an administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 to avoid trial by court-martial.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  

3.  The Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his separation.

4.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature; however, he met entrance qualification standards to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

5.  The available records do not contain any evidence to indicate the applicant requested a hardship discharge due to personal problems.  Even if so, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.

6.  During separation processing, the applicant stated he did not like military people or large groups of people and that he would leave in an AWOL status again, if returned to duty.  This explanation is at variance with the explanation cited in his application.

7.  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.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board of either.

8.  Although the Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments since being separated from active duty, these accomplishments alone do not provide a basis upon which to grant relief.

9.  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

__aao___  __reb___  __ecp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087877	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810315	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.