MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059780

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was having marital problems at the time.  He feels that the punishment was too harsh.  

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The American Legion, as counsel for the applicant, notes that the applicant maintains that his discharge is too harsh and that his over-all service is more deserving of an honorable type discharge.  Counsel further notes that the applicant indicates that he experienced marital problems that diminished his ability to serve.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 June 1973 for a period of three years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 5 February 1974, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 21 May 1974, the applicant received a second Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He received another Article 15 in June 1974 for being absent from his unit on two occasions.

On 29 August 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent from his unit twice, being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 July 1974 to 28 July 1974 and from 2 August 1974 to 5 August 1974, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 40 days (suspended for 60 days).

On 15 January 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant for two periods of AWOL from 25 October 1974 to 19 November 1974 and from 
6 to 11 December 1974.  On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 21 January 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an undesirable discharge.  
The applicant was discharged on 11 February 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 1 year, 7 months and 7 days of creditable service with 39 days of lost time.

Prior to his discharge, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation.

On 6 July 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.  

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 an undesirable 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 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.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The contentions of the applicant and his counsel have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

4.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

5.  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.

6.  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

RJW____  KAN_____  REB____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059780	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011025	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750604	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.