MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           4 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003089597

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no argument or evidence in support of his application.

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

He was born on 21 February 1953 and enlisted in Dallas, Texas on 3 June 1974, for a period of 2 years and assignment to Europe.  He was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to undergo his basic combat training.

On 1 July 1974, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Amarillo, Texas, and was returned to military control at Fort Hood, Texas on 9 October 1974.  He again went AWOL on 18 October 1974 and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Kaufman, Texas, and was returned to military control at Fort Hood on 29 February 1975, where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offenses .  

On 10 March 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He further elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas, he asserted he simply could not adjust to military life and stay mentally balanced at the same time.

The appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved the request for discharge on 21 March 1975 and directed that he be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 April 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 3 months and 2 days of total active service and had 238 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was still in a trainee status at the time of his discharge.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.  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.  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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the length of his absence as well as his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.

4.  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.

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 ___  __bje ___  _rvo ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089597	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1975/05/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.