MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            10 May 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999030199

	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. Ron Williams		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he entered the Army to get away from a  father that was both mentally and physically abusive; that after enlisting he could not cope with the training and being yelled at by the drill instructors, because it brought back memories of being abused by his father; that he had a legitimate reason for his actions; and that he was not just acting out in violence because he did not want to be in the Army, or to serve and protect his country.

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

On 15 January 1968 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years unassigned.  At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years old and achieved an Armed Forces Qualifications Test Score (AFQT) of 15 (i.e., mental category IV).  He was initially assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for Basic Combat Training (BCT). 

On 4 March 1968 he accepted a field grade nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his unit.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $45.00 per month for 2 months and 45 days of extra duty.

On 5 May 1968 he departed Fort Campbell in an AWOL status and remained so until 18 July 1968, when he returned to military control at Fort Campbell.

On 30 July 1968 he was reported AWOL for a day.

On 1 August 1968 a special court-martial found him guilty of two specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to 6 months confinement at hard labor (suspended) and forfeiture of $68.00 per month for 6 months.  

On 11 August 1968 he departed in an AWOL status and remained so absent until on or about 11 March 1969 when he returned to military control at Fort Campbell.

On 19 March 1969 he was convicted by a special court-martial of the aforementioned AWOL.  He was sentenced to 6 months confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $68.00 per month for 6 months.

He was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas to serve his confinement.  On or about 28 May 1969 he was released from confinement at Fort Riley and assigned to Fort Ord, California.

The record then indicates that he was AWOL from 2 June 1969 to 17 September 1969, and again from 3 October 1969 to on or about 14 January 1970.

He was returned to military control at Fort Campbell.  At Fort Campbell he was charged with two specifications of AWOL and placed in pre-trial confinement.

On 11 March 1970, having been advised of the charges against him, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 30 March 1970 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a undesirable discharge.  Accordingly, on 9 April 1970 the applicant was discharged after completing 7 months and 27 days of creditable service for pay purposes and accruing 548 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.

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 are 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3. The applicant’s request for 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.

4.  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

     MKP            GDP       TBR        DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030199	
SUFFIX		
RECON	NO	
DATE BOARDED	000510	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700409	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635.200. C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A7000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.A9309		
2.A9323		
3.A0145		
4.		
5.		
6.