MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            19 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029729

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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:  That he never abandoned his country, that he always stayed here, that he was a little wild at that time, and that when he went AWOL he always came back.

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

He was inducted in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on 3 February 1969 and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to attend basic training.  He was over 20 years of age at the time of his induction and was single.

On 16 March 1969 he went AWOL and remained AWOL until he was returned to military control on 17 April 1969.  He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 7 May 1969 of being AWOL from 16 March to 16 April 1969.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of pay and restriction. 

On 7 June 1969 he went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 27 October 1969.  He went AWOL the following day             (28 October 1969) and remained absent until 7 April 1970.  He again went AWOL on 22 April and remained absent until he was returned to military control on 21 November 1970.

The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his record does contain a report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 February 1970, 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 served 5 months, and 17 days of total active service and had 565 days of lost time.  He had never completed his training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty based on training.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant 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.  Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge.  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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that 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.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit when compared to the available facts and circumstances, the extensive amount of lost time in such a short period of service, and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

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

___rvo___  ___jpi ___  __clg ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029729	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/02/08	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689/GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/A70.00/GD OF SVC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.