MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  4 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031560

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Carol J. Suiter		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant offers no statement in his behalf.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 1 November 1968.  He completed training as a vehicle mechanic and was eventually assigned to Vietnam.  While there he was punished twice under Article 15, UCMJ for absence from his place of duty and sleeping on guard duty in a combat zone.

The applicant returned to the US and was AWOL from 20 September 1970 to 22 March 1971, from 25 March to 9 May 1971, and from 23 May to 5 October 1971.  He was placed in confinement on 6 October 1971.  Charges were preferred for these AWOL offenses.

On 7 October 1971, after consultation with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and may be deprived of many or all veterans benefits under Federal and state laws.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation authority, a major general, approved the request on 14 October 1971 and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge.  Effective 3 December 1971 the applicant was discharged under authority of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  His DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that he had 2 years, 1 month, and 2 days creditable service and 365 days lost time, however the lost time recorded did not include approximately 48 days confinement.

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.

On 7 November 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  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.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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.

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

__LS___  __CS___  ___JS__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031560	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711203	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.