MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           24 January 2002   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063468

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and had family problems back home. He also states that he thought the Army was for him, but it was not.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army, at age 19, for 3 years as a private first class on 13 December 1974.

He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 9 October 1975.  

On 21 October 1975, his father was notified in writing that the applicant had been reported AWOL and if the applicant did not report to his unit by 6 November 1975, he would be dropped from the rolls as a deserter.

On 7 November 1975, his father was notified in writing that the applicant had been dropped from the rolls as a deserter.

The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 26 December 1975.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to his separation are not in the available records.  However, on 2 February 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant for discharge from the service with an undesirable discharge.  

He was separated on 10 February 1976, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was 21 years of age and he was credited with 11 months and 12 days total active service and 78 days AWOL.

The applicant was advised that he could request a review of his discharge within 15 years after the date of discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  There is no evidence he applied to the ADRB within the 15 year statute of limitations.

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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that he was young and had family problems back home have been noted by the Board; however, his contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record, and do not otherwise serve as mitigating evidence in this case.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

4.  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.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063468	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001063468	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.