MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           29 JANUARY 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063408

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 or general.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had four years of good service.  He was stationed in Germany and Vietnam, then at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He was taking drugs and drinking heavily and received an undesirable discharge.  He hasn’t taken drugs or drank for over 30 years, nor has he been in any trouble.  He has been married to the same woman.  They have four children and nine grandchildren.  He is sorry for what he did.    

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 8 February 1966, completed training, and in August 1966 was reassigned to a cavalry squadron in Germany.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in February 1967.  On 20 April 1967 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his unit and for failing to pay a debt.  In August 1967 the applicant departed Germany and was transferred to a supply company in Vietnam.  On   26 January 1968 he received nonjudicial punishment for sleeping at his guard post.  He completed his tour in Vietnam and returned to the United States at Fort Bragg in November 1968.  On 5 December 1968 he received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful regulation and for failing to go to his place of duty.  On 22 January 1969 the applicant reenlisted in the Army for six years. 

Beginning in March 1969 the applicant began a series of AWOLs lasting through May 1970.  During that period he had 393 days of AWOL, and 10 days of civil confinement.  He was confined by military authorities on 14 May 1970.

On 18 June 1970 the applicant consulted with counsel and under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  The applicant’s commanding officer recommended approval of his request, and recommended that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 14 July 1970.  He had 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days of service, and 403 days of lost time.

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 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.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's good post service conduct is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

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 that 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

__AAO __  __MHM _  __KAH __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063408	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	189	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.