MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            3 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034202

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Member	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his records by upgrading his discharge to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect,  that he believes in this country and that he regrets the mistakes of youth that he made while in the Army.  As an adult he has waged a war on drugs.  He contends that he was absent without leave (AWOL) because he feared for his life.  He cites a message stating that he was needed to testify at a court-martial and reports that if he had know it would have helped clear his own name he would have testified.  He also reports that he was trying to earn a general educational development (GED) certificate but had to drop out because of the demands of duty.  He also includes an extract of Title 38, Combined Federal Regulations, section 312 that he believes is applicable to his case and a letter of support. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 8 July 1988 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and argument that require Board consideration.  

An unsigned 24 January 1999 letter from a law enforcement officer and friend states that the applicant has been instrumental in helping him make several arrests.  He believes that the applicant deserves a second chance. 

A GED record form shows the applicant entered a GED program in May 1970 and was dropped on 10 December 1970 because of “too much duty on off sched hrs.”

A 26 January 1973 message from Germany states that the applicant was wanted as a material witness in a court-martial proceeding.

Title 38, CFR, section 312 sets forth the standards the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) will consider in deciding whether to extend VA administered benefits to individuals who were discharged under other than honorable conditions. 
 
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 law enforcement officer’s letter is accepted as an implied argument that the applicant’s post service conduct and accomplishments warrant the requested relief.  The content of that letter is noted.  However, these factors are not so exceptionally meritorious as to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The issue of the applicant’s GED classes does not excuse his misconduct. 

3.  There is no reason to conclude that the applicant’s unidentified testimony in an unidentified court-martial would have done anything to justify the requested relief. 

4. Title 38, CFR, section 312 does not apply to considerations by this Board. 

5.  The applicant’s reason for going AWOL is irrelevant.  He was not and could not have been sentenced to a punitive discharge for those four short periods of AWOL.  The only offense that made him eligible to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial was his escaping from custody.  Therefore he was, in effect, discharged for escaping custody and not for going AWOL.    

6.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034202	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000803	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	10 May 1971	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 AR 635-120	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A93.23	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.