MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:           13 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054289

	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	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and immature and thought that he was in love.  Because of this, he acted irresponsibly and did not report to his unit of assignment.  He states that it has been over 20 years since his discharge; that he regrets his misconduct as a young adult; that he has since matured; and that if he had known the consequences of his actions, he would have found another way to handle his problem.

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

He was born on 20 October 1962 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 27 November 1979.  He enlisted for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, and for the U.S. Army Airborne Enlistment Option.  At the time of enlistment, the applicant was 17 years old and had completed the 10th grade.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 11B and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington as his first permanent assignment.  

On 27 May 1980, the applicant was promoted to the rank of private/E-2 and, on 27 November 1980, he was promoted to the rank of private first class/E-3.

On or about 19 May 1981, the applicant departed Fort Lewis for an assignment in Panama.  He failed to report and, on 23 June 1981, he was listed as absent without leave (AWOL).  He remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities at Cleveland, Ohio on 10 August 1981.  He was transferred to the US Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

On 13 August 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of AWOL totaling 48 days.  On 14 August 1981, after consulting with legal counsel about his rights, the applicant 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.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf indicating that he joined the Army for a change of pace in his life; that he had completed 10 years of schooling; that he was now 18 years old; and that he now wanted out of the Army because he had personal problems at home.

On 24 August 1981, the company commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 11 September 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  Accordingly, on 5 October 1981, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 22 days of creditable military service and accruing 48 days of lost time.  He was credited with the Expert Infantryman Badge, Army Service Ribbon, Parachute Badge, and the Marksmanship Qualification Badge (M-16 Rifle and Hand Grenade).

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.

On 5 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 18 December 1996, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he went AWOL because he was young, immature, in love, not thinking clearly, and had personal problems at home.  The Board also noted that he was almost 19 years old when he went AWOL and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other 19-year old soldiers who successfully completed military service without resorting to AWOL to handle personal problems.  Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant had other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct that led to his discharge from the Army.

3.  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.

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

__FNE__  __JED___  ___TLP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054289	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010913	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19811005	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9301	
2.	144.7301	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.