MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           26 MARCH 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065552

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 bad conduct discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was AWOL (absent without leave) because of family problems and that he has "lived in shame" for over 30 years because of his discharge.  He states that he lost his wife and son "for what [he] did" and spent 9 months in jail.  He indicates that he has paid a "large price" for AWOL.  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He initially entered active duty in July 1964 and was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment in September 1965.  The applicant had 11 years of formal education and all but three of his initial aptitude test scores were above 100, including a GT (general technical) score of 106.   He successfully completed training as a parachute rigger and had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings during initial assignments at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Fort Rucker, Alabama.

In June 1967, while serving in pay grade E-4, he was assigned to Panama.

According to information contained in his file, he was permitted to go on leave after receiving a letter from his spouse that she was dissatisfied with the "unfit life they were having."  The documents indicate that his spouse asked him to stay home and he was placed in an AWOL status in July 1967 when he failed to return to his duty station in Panama.  While in an AWOL status the applicant and his spouse divorced.

On 31 January 1969 the applicant was convicted by a general court-martial pursuant to his pleas of AWOL from on or about 4 July 1967 until on or about 
9 January 1969.  His sentence included a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year.

On 18 March 1969, the appellate military judges at the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The Judge Advocate General, affirmed his conviction.

A July 1969 petition for clemency was denied and on 22 September 1969 his bad conduct discharge was executed.  At the time of his discharge he had approximately 35 months of creditable service and more than 700 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly 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.  The applicant's separation was executed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.  There is no evidence of any error.  

2.  Although the Board does note that the applicant had approximately 35 months of honorable service, his more than 700 days of lost time and extensive period of AWOL does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on equity.  The applicant has submitted no evidence which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge.

3.  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.

4.  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

___GDP_  __DSJ  __  __REB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065552	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020326	
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.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.