MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:  

	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.		Director	
	Ms.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was very young and he tried to help a friend.  He realized he had made a mistake when the incident escalated.  Since being discharged he has had no conflicts with the law and he has served his community with pride.

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

On 14 May 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H Indirect Fire Crewman.  

In October 1968, he was assigned to Germany.  In December 1968, he was placed on special duty with the unit police.  On 20 June 1969, the military police searched the unit area for a straight razor belonging to another service member who was a friend of the applicant.  The razor was found in the applicant's wall-locker.  The applicant was greatly concerned about the incident and expressed his fear of being court-martialed.  Some members in the applicant's chain of command felt that the applicant may have hidden the razor for his friend.  
On 21 June 1969, the applicant and the service member to whom the razor belonged were reported AWOL.  Prior to this incident, the applicant had been a model soldier and had no disciplinary problems.

On 23 July 1969, the Swedish Immigration Board granted the applicant residence.  On 19 August 1969, he was granted a Swedish alien's passport.  On 22 September 1969, he was charged with petty larceny and theft.  On 9 October 1969, he was sentenced to 8 months and deportation from Scandinavia for 
10 years.  On 31 March 1970, he was released from the prison for good behavior after serving a portion of his sentence.  On 14 May 1970, he was charged with a second petty theft.  On 3 June 1970, he was sentenced to complete the remaining part of his previous sentence. 

In 1973, British police in Tewkesbury, England, apprehended the applicant for theft.  He stated that he was an American soldier who had deserted from Germany.  British authorities contacted the Department of the Army for a photo, fingerprints, and other information to help establish the applicant's true identity.  The Department of the Army responded by providing the information requested.

On 3 October 1977, the applicant turned himself into military authorities at the US Army Provisional Deserter Processing Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison.  On the same date, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 15, Army Regulation 635-200, for AWOL (Desertion).

Legal counsel advised him of his rights and that the offense for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he understood the ramifications of a UD, he waived further legal representation and he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf and he also declined to have his case reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board.  

On 3 October 1977, the applicant’s commander recommended separation.  Competent authority approved the recommendation.  On 3 October 1977, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 15, Army Regulation 635-200, for AWOL (Desertion) with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of active military service and he had 750 days lost time prior his end term of service (ETS) and a total of 2,333 days lost time after his ETS. . 

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 15 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct by reason of absence without leave or desertion.

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 took into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time that he went AWOL.  However, the Board determined that applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age and that no evidence was provided that indicated he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their service obligation.

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

4.  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

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022186	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990527	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19771003	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 15	
DISCHARGE REASON	AWOL/DESERTION	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He was young and he made a mistake by trying to help a friend.  He realized he had made a mistake when the incident escalated.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.