PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031630

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

3.  The applicant states his belief that his punishment was too severe for his infraction of the UCMJ.  The personal problems that resulted from his wife and son being unable to travel overseas with him were devastating, and things went downhill from there.  In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD Forms 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), a four page self authored statement of his career in the Army and what led to his discharge, a psychological report, and an application for VA benefits.

4.  The applicant enlisted on 30 September 1965 and was separated with an honorable discharge on 26 June 1967 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was separated with an honorable discharge on 19 March 1970 with a total of 4 years, 5 months and 20 days active service, again for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  During this period, he served without discreditable incident of record, was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, and was promoted to specialist five (E-5) on 10 October 1968.  The applicant also served a tour in Vietnam where he earned the Combat Infantryman Badge.

5.  The applicant immediately reenlisted on 20 March 1970 for a period of 
6 years.

6.  During the applicant’s last enlistment, he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) four times under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 3 December 1971 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty; on 25 January 1972 for failure to obey a lawful regulation; on 19 July 1973 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty; and on 26 December 1973 for failure to obey a lawful order.

7.  On 7 February 1975, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 
21 May 1974 to 4 February 1975.  On 14 February 1975, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he acknowledged he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that he did not desire further rehabilitation, nor did he desire further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf, in which he blamed the military for his divorce and expressed an inability to deal with Army life any further.

8.  On 8 May 1975, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 27 May 1975 at Fort Ord, California.  He had 8 years, 11 months and 9 days of creditable service and 259 days of lost time.

10.  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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

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

CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  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.

3.  The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge.  However, in view of the honorable nature of his prior enlistments, his honorable discharge on 19 March 1970 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.  To do otherwise would work an injustice upon him by depriving him, or his heirs, of consideration for certain VA benefits for his honorable period of service.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider his honorable discharge on 19 March 1970 as a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned received a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 19 March 1970.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__mdm__  __wtm__  __clg____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Mark D. Manning__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031630	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750527	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.