MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:          21 October 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088459

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		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 to either a general or honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was young and too immature to trust his ability to function in war.  He departed absent without leave (AWOL) to avoid military service in Vietnam.  He adds that the President of the United States pardoned the people who dodged the draft.  He believes that his discharge should be upgraded based upon the same principles.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1969.  He was a high school graduate and 19 years old at that time.

On 18 December 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order.

On 19 December 1969, the applicant again accepted NJP, this time for failing to secure his personal property.

He was awarded the military occupational specialty of artilleryman and was assigned to a unit in Germany in May 1970.

On 21 December 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for attempting to wrongfully appropriate 10 gallons of gasoline.

On 29 August 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 26 February 1971 to 17 August 1972.

On 8 September 1972, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of court-martial for the good of the service.  His legal counsel countersigned his request.

His request was approved by the appropriate authority and he was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service on 28 September 1972.  He had 1 year, 4 months and 14 days of creditable service and 541 days of lost time.

On 18 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was AWOL for well over a year.  Prior to going AWOL, he accepted NJP on three occasions.  Such a record certainly warranted an undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature is not accepted by the Board.  He was 19 years old when he enlisted, and he was 22 years old when he was discharged.  The Army has soldiers who enlist when they are 17 years old who routinely serve their entire enlistments honorably.

3.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based upon the same principles used by the President of the United States when he pardoned the men who dodged the draft is not accepted by the Board.  That was a civilian matter, not a military matter.  The applicant was properly processed in accordance with the military regulations in effect at the time.

4.  The applicant’s statement that he went AWOL to avoid military service in Vietnam is not mitigating in the type of discharge he was issued.  When the applicant departed AWOL, another soldier had to take his place in Vietnam.  This is not a fact that would warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge.

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

___fcj___  ___wdp __  ___mhm_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088459	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20061021	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.