MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001062738

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was never sent orders to be anywhere and was told that he would never lose his hospital benefits.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the USAR on 30 April 1973, for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 27 July 1973, and was released from ADT on 23 November 1973. 

On 15 October 1975, the applicant’s commander sent a memorandum to the applicant informing him that he was absent from annual ADT during the period 
2 to 15 August 1975.  The memorandum acknowledged that the applicant had been counseled and that he understood the satisfactory participation requirements as an obligated Reservist. He was warned of the consequences of unsatisfactory participation and that no cogent or emergency reasons existed or were submitted to his unit explaining the reason for his unsatisfactory participation.  He was required to enter active duty (AD) within 30 days after notification and ordered to serve a period of 20 months and 4 days.  He was informed that orders would be published and forwarded as soon as assignment instructions were received by higher headquarters.  He was also informed that if he failed to report that he would be subject to apprehension by military authorities.  The applicant signed the registered mail receipt on 25 October 1975.

On 3 November 1975, the applicant ‘s commander nominated the applicant 
for involuntary AD under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, based on his unauthorized absence from Annual Training (AT). 

The applicant was notified by mail on 26 January 1976, of his right to appeal.  On 2 March 1976, assignment instructions were requested.

On 1 June 1976, the applicant failed to report to AD and was reported AWOL on the same day.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 31 January 1977, for being AWOL from 1 June 1976 to 28 January 1977 (241 days).

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 31 January 1977, and was found qualified for separation.

On 1 February 1977, he consulted with 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 offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 9 February 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 16 February 1977.  He had a total of 8 months, and 13 days of creditable service and had 241 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 135-91, in effect at that time, (Policies and Procedures Governing Satisfactory Participation) prescribes policies, procedures, and responsibilities pertaining to satisfactory completion of the Ready Reserve service obligation and enforcement procedures pertaining thereto for certain personnel of the Reserve Components.  Paragraph 11 pertains to unexcused absences from annual training.  It states that members who failed to participate satisfactorily, without proper authority, to attend or complete training would be ordered to AD for a period which, when added to their prior service on AD, ADT, AT, or full-time training duty, would total 24 months.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was never sent orders to be anywhere; however, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was notified by his commander, in writing, regarding his absence from annual ADT.  The applicant was counseled and stated that he understood the satisfactory participation requirements as an obligated Reservist.  

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant was notified by mail of his right to appeal, but failed to respond, and the applicant failed to comply with orders ordering him to AD. 

3.  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.  

4.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and 
VA benefits.

5.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

6.  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.

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

__jl___  ___rd___  __rw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062738	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020226	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770216	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.