MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 February 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064889

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols 		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told his character of service would be upgraded after six months.

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

The applicant enlisted on 11 September 1974 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty as a welder.

The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 17 July 1975.  He was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 9 September 1975.  On 17 September 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.  

On 17 September 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

On 6 November 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 19 November 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 1 year and 15 days of total active service with 54 days lost due to AWOL.   

There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 considered the applicant’s contention that he was told his character of service would be upgraded after six months.  However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.  

2.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s brief record of service which included a 54-day AWOL period which was terminated by apprehension by civil authorities and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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 type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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 this 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

FNE____  MKP_____  LE_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064889	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751106	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.