MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 September 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088470

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones		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:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he went on leave to help care for his pregnant wife. He states that his approved leave expired and his wife still needed his help.  He states that he contacted the Red Cross and that he was told that his leave had been extended.  He goes on to state that about 1 week later he was arrested by the military police while he was at home.  He states that he received no counseling or due process.  He concludes by stating that although he was a good soldier with good performance evaluations, he was furnished a bad discharge.

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

On 11 June 1971, he enlisted in the Army at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for 2 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a lineman.

His conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent from the time of his enlistment until he went absent without leave (AWOL) on 26 June 1972.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 28 February 1973.  He was charged with two specifications of being AWOL from 26 June 1972 until 11 December 1972 and from 8 January 1973 until 27 February 1973.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 12 March 1973. Accordingly, on 14 March 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 15 days of total active service and he had approximately 230 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 6 May 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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, they are unsupported by the evidence of record.  There is no evidence of record that shows that he was not afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to being discharged.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he went AWOL twice and then he submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial after he consulted with counsel.  

4.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

5.  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.

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

__fcj ____  __bje ___  ___rvo__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088470	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/03/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  706	144.7017/SERIOUS OFFENSE	
2.  708	144.7100/AWOL	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.		
\