MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033984

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 when he was released from the Army with an undesirable discharge, he was told he would automatically receive an honorable discharge in 6 months.  He didn’t know he had to file any kind of papers.  He was never notified of any changes he had to make.  No papers were ever sent to him, so he thought everything was taken care of.

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

He was inducted on 15 November 1967.  Although he completed basic training, he failed to complete advanced individual training due to AWOL.

On 3 May 1968, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 2 February 1968 to 19 April 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months.

On 16 September 1968, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty of AWOL from 25 June 1968 to 12 August 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $46.00 per month for 
6 months.

On 24 September 1969, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 
3 January 1969 to 31 August 1969.  On 2 October 1969, 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 that 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 have any desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 8 October 1969, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 14 October 1969 at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He had 3 months and 10 days of creditable service, and 595 days of time lost.

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.

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically states that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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.

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.  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 Board has noted the applicant’s contention in regard to an automatic upgrade of his discharge.  However, it is not supported either by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  An upgrade is not automatic and the merits of this case do not warrant an upgrade.

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

_jhl_____  __jns____  __mhm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033984	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19691014	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.