MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          4 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088072

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones 		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he lost his luggage at the airport and that is when things started.  He claims that he never got his rank.  He also claims that someone put drugs in his bedpost so they discharged him.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 April 1970.  He was assigned to the Basic Combat Committee Group in Fort Lewis, Washington on 20 July 1970 for on the job training in duty military occupational specialty 55A (Ammunition Helper).

On 8 February 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully possessing marijuana and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 December 1970 to on or about 17 January 1971.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for four months (suspended for four months) and forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for three months.

The applicant was promoted to the rank of private first class on 14 April 1971.

On 18 June 1971, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to obey a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of fourteen days of extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL 19 August 1971 to on or about 19 September 1971.

On 26 October 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was issued.  The applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  In essence, the applicant stated that the best thing for him was to get out of the Army under chapter 10.  He claimed that he had family problems.  He stated that his mother worked very hard all the time because his father had heart trouble.  He stated that he helped his mother out before he came into the Army.

The separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service on 16 November 1971 and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 16 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 5 days of total active military service with 29 days of lost time due to one period of AWOL.  

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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.  An undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.  

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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, also 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 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.  
3.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  Based on the foregoing, the Board has determined that there is no apparent error, injustice or inequity on which to base recharacterization of the applicant's discharge.

6.  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

RVO_____  BJE____  FCJ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088072	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030904	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711116	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.