MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            2 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063625

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 undesirable discharge (UD) discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) does not reflect that he turned himself in from being AWOL (absent without leave).  He further states that his earlier life experiences (sexual abuse/rape) were the proximate cause of his going AWOL. 

In support of his application, the applicant submitted various documents relating to his psychiatric care since being discharged from the Army and several character references.  It is noted that the applicant began treatment in 1977, at least 1 year after discharge.

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

On 15 November 1974, the applicant was examined for enlistment in the Army and was found to be medically qualified for enlistment.  The applicant did not indicate on SF 93 (Report of Medical History) that he had previously suffered, or was then suffering from depression, anxiety, or any other type of mental condition.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1974 for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the Station of Choice Enlistment Option – Fort Sheridan, Illinois, and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71M, Chaplain’s Assistant.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 71M and was assigned to Fort Sheridan as his first permanent duty assignment.

The applicant did not report to Fort Sheridan and was AWOL from 16 April 1975 through 4 December 1975.  On 5 December 1975, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Carson, Colorado, and was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 8 December 1975. On 9 December 1975, counsel advised the applicant of his rights and the consequences of requesting discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200.  After consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant voluntarily and in writing, requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he was just not suited for the Army, that he had no emotional problems, and that he understood the consequences of a chapter 10 discharge.  The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UD.

On 16 December 1975, a mental status examination found no apparent psychosis or debilitating neurosis and psychiatrically cleared the applicant for discharge.  It was noted that the applicant did not check the block on SF 93 relating to depression/anxiety, nor did he indicate he was having any psychiatric problems. 

On 31 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD.  Accordingly, on 19 January 1976, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 6 months and 3 days of creditable military service and accruing 233 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his UD on 29 October 1982.  The ADRB considered the applicant’s case and denied relief on 12 November 1982.

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 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.

2.  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.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s complaint that his DD Form 214 did not state that he had returned voluntarily to military control; however, the method in which an applicant returns from a period of AWOL is not recorded on his DD Form 214.

4.  The record does not support, and the applicant has not presented any evidence to support his contention that his period of AWOL was the result of rape and sexual abuse he experienced as a child.  Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that the applicant was experiencing any psychiatric problems or anxiety when he enlisted or when he was discharged from the Army.

5.  The Board noted that it was more than 1 year after the applicant was separated from the Army when he was initially diagnosed with, and treated for a mental illness.

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

__WTM__  __CLG__  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002063625	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020402	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760119	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.	144.9323	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.