MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           2 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063667

	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) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his characterization of service for a one-time offense is very harsh and that his MOS (military occupational specialty) was changed from 95B to 95C.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1974 for a period of 3 years.  He enlisted for the Continental United States (CONUS) Station of Choice Enlistment Option – Fort Dix, New Jersey, and training in MOS 95C, Corrections Specialist.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 95C and was assigned to Fort Dix as his first permanent duty station.

On 23 December 1974, the applicant was promoted to Private/E-2 and on 1 February 1975, the applicant was promoted to Private First Class/E-3.

The applicant served without incident until 31 July 1975 when he departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until civil authorities apprehended him on 20 August 1975.  He was returned to military control on 26 August 1975.

On 28 August 1975, the applicant again departed his unit AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 12 September 1975.  The applicant did not provide an explanation as to why he went AWOL.

On 23 September 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of AWOL.  On 15 October 1975, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UD.

On 29 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD.  Accordingly, on 4 November 1975, the applicant was discharged from the Army.  His DD Form 214 shows that he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days of creditable military service and accrued 36 days of lost time.

AR 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 a UD.

On 2 September 1982, the applicant applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 21 October 1982, the applicant was notified that since he had not exhausted all avenues of administrative relief his application had been forwarded to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for appropriate action upon receipt of a signed Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293).  There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

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 noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence of record does not support them, nor has he provided any corroborating evidence to support them.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant enlisted for training in MOS 95C and that he was awarded MOS 95C.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant’s MOS was changed from MOS 95B to 95C.  Additionally, the evidence of record indicates the applicant’s misconduct was not of an isolated nature, but of multiple periods of AWOL.

2.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.

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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

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

__WTM _  __CLG __  __RKS __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063667	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020402	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751104	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.