MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:   14 July 1999                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018576

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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 (UD) be upgraded to a honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  His average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good or pretty good.  His promotions show that he was generally a good service member.  His ability to serve was impaired by his immaturity; his level of education; and by personal, marital, family and childcare problems.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s low test scores and only having an 8th grade education limited his ability to succeed in the military.

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

On 31 October 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 62B (Engine Equipment Repairman).  He was 18 years old at the time.  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

The applicant received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings during basic and advanced individual training.  However, on 17 January 1973, prior to graduating from basic training, he was counseled for unsatisfactorily progressing during training, for being unmotivated, for being rebellious towards authority and for his attitude towards the military.

On 5 May 1973, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  He repeatedly went AWOL.  He was AWOL from 2 - 7 July 1973, from 13 -19 August 1973, from 10 September -15 October 1973, and from 31 October - 5 November 1973. 

On 7 December 1973, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for being AWOL from 13 -20 August 1973, and from 10 September - 16 October 1973.  His sentence included forfeiture of pay, and 30 days hard labor without confinement.

On 2 January 1974, the applicant went AWOL again and he remained AWOL until the Federal Bureau of Investigation apprehended him in Texarkana, Arkansas on 16 April 1974.  He was then transferred to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

On 26 April 1974, court-martial charges were preferred for the period of AWOL from 2 January through 16 April 1974.

On 6 May 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  Counsel advised him that the offense for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He stated that he understood the ramifications of a UD.  He also indicated in a statement written in his own behalf that he wanted out of the military, he did not like the military and that he could not adjust to the military.  Further, he stated that he did not have any family, medical, or financial problems.  

On 9 May 1974, the applicant’s unit commander recommended separation and the issuance of a UD.  

On 15 May 1974, competent authority approved the applicant's request.  On 
17 May 1974, he was separated with a UD for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 1 year, and 9 days of active military service and he had 158 days lost time due to AWOL.

The record indicates that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 24 July 1984.

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 a UD.

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.  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 Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers or that his lack of education limited his ability to successfully complete his military service obligation.

3.  Evidence of record does not indicate that the applicant was experiencing personal, marital, family or childcare problems at the time the offenses were committed.  Even, if so, the Board determined that there were other legitimate avenues he could have pursued in resolving his personal problems in lieu of going AWOL.  

4.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct by military personnel.  His misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct.

5.  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.

6.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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

SAC____  EW_____  JS______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018576	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990714	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740517	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A144.00	
2.	A01.13	
3.	A92.31	
4.	A93.03	
5.	A93.07	
6.