MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 AUGUST 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089077

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 "under conditions other than honorable" discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has been involved with the Melcher-Dallas, Iowa American Legion for 10 years now and served as the commander for a period of 4 years.  He states that he is currently serving in the position of "post adjutant" but his eligibility is now being questioned.  The applicant states that he would like to continue to work with, and serve his country and community as a member of the American Legion and as such, "respectfully" requests that his discharge be upgraded.  Other than his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty as an enlisted soldier on 30 March 1970, at the age of 17, with 9 years of formal education.  

He successfully completed basic training and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

In July 1970 he was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland for the purposed of attending advanced individual training.  

However, on 10 July 1970 he commenced a series of absent without leave (AWOL) periods, which ultimately resulted in his being dropped from the rolls of the Army on two separate occasions.

In June 1971, when charges were preferred against the applicant for his more than 200 days of lost time, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  

In a statement submitted on his own behalf he noted that he wanted to be discharged because he could not "live in a place where everyone is bossing everyone else around" and that he did not "like to be tied down in a certain place [he] want[ed] to be free."

The separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant's request and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  On 17 June 1971 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 6 months and 29 days creditable service and more than 200 days lost time.

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.

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 that requirement.

2.  The Board notes that in spite of the applicant’s age and education level at the time of his enlistment in the Army, he successfully completed basic training and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  Such actions indicate that the applicant was capable of honorable service.  

3.  The applicant’s discharge was the result of his own request after more than 200 days of being absent without leave.  The actions of the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.  

4.  While the Board does note the applicant’s contention that since his discharge he has been actively involved in the American Legion and wishes to remain active in that organization, these issues, either in part or in whole, are insufficient to justify upgrading the applicant’s discharge.

5.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge was in error or unjust.  He has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity.

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

__AAO __  __TL ___  __HBO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089077	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	200360828	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.