MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034509

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the President said that all veterans discharged during the Vietnam era, could have their discharges upgraded to honorable.

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

On 10 September 1969, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  He successfully completed his training as an automotive repairman parts specialist.  He was honorably discharged on 9 July 1970 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had completed 10 months of total active service.

On 10 July 1970, he reenlisted in the Army for 3 years.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 1 October 1970 for being AWOL from 18 September until 20 September 1970 and for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 14 October 1970, NJP was imposed against him for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant went AWOL on 12 November 1970 and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities and on 9 February 1973.

On 16 February 1973, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 had been initiated.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On the same day, he submitted a request to be placed on excess leave status pending his discharge from the Army and the appropriate authority approved his request.  Accordingly, on 20 February 1973 the applicant was placed on excess leave status pending the outcome of his administrative discharge.  However, he failed to report back to his unit on 4 March 1973 as directed.  Therefore, his status changed from excess leave to AWOL on 4 March 1973.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 7 March 1973.  Accordingly, on 19 March 1973, the applicant was discharged in absentia under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct (prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1 year -Desertion).  A letter was 
sent to the applicant’s address informing him that he had been discharged and to return his identification card.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 14 days of total active service and he had a total of 836 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for separation of individuals who had remained continuously in a status of desertion for more than 1 year.  An undesirable discharge was 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, 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, there is no such law that provides for the automatic upgrade of discharges for veterans who served during the Vietnam era.

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

___eja___  ___vbc__  ___jph __  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034509	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/19	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/03/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206	
DISCHARGE REASON	626	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  651	144.6300/A63.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.