MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056104

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like the Board to consider his record of service prior to the incident that led to his discharge and his            post-service conduct since his discharge in upgrading his discharge.  In support of his application he submits documents from his current employer and course completion certificates showing his completion of job related courses.

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

He initially enlisted on 26 October 1976 for a period of 3 years, training as a combat engineer and assignment to Europe.  He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 4 March 1977.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1978. 

He was honorably discharged on 22 March 1979 for immediate reenlistment.  On 23 March 1979 he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and payment of a selective reenlistment bonus.

On 29 February 1980 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 December to 22 December 1980.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

He completed his tour in Germany on 29 February 1980 and was transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia on 31 March 1980.

On 9 July 1980 he went AWOL and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Panama City, Florida on 22 July 1981.  He was returned to military control at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 4 August 1981 and charges were preferred against him.

After consulting with counsel on 5 August 1981, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that he should receive an honorable discharge because he had previously received an honorable discharge and because he had only one incident in which NJP had been imposed against him.

The unit commander interviewed the applicant and indicated that the applicant had stated that he went AWOL because he believed that he was constantly being lied to by the chain of command, that he was being placed on details that

soldiers of lower rank should be doing and because he was expected to wear spit-shined boots and clean fatigues while working on vehicles in the motor pool. He also stated that he would continue to go AWOL if he were not granted a discharge.

The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 31 August 1981 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 September 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 5 months and 6 days of his current enlistment and had 384 days of lost time due to AWOL.

A review of his records shows that he received six letters of appreciation/achievement throughout his service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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 was then and currently is 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.  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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  It appears that the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charges against him and his otherwise undistinguished record of service. 

4.  The applicant’s contentions, supporting documents and overall record of service have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his extensive absence and the available facts of his case.

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

___tbr___  ___mkp  _  ___rks __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056104	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/09/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00 	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.