MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065903

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That what he needed was a hardship discharge because his father was disabled and he cared for his parents until they passed away.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 March 1970 for a period of 3 years and airborne training.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, and was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam.

The applicant served in Vietnam from 22 October 1970 to 20 August 1971.  During his tour in Vietnam, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 26 February 1971, for sleeping on guard duty.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $60.00 pay for 1 month.  He appealed the punishment and it was mitigated to $31.00 pay.  On 6 April 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for dereliction of duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-2.

On 20 August 1971, the applicant reported to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  He went on leave and was due to return on 10 September 1971.  He failed to return and was listed as absent without leave (AWOL) and remained AWOL until 28 September 1971 when he was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On 30 September 1971, the applicant received and acknowledged a direct order to report to his unit at Fort Campbell; however, he did not report.  On 1 October 1971, he was again listed as AWOL and remained absent until 22 October 1971.

On 22 October 1971, the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities at Drumwright, Oklahoma, and returned to military control on 26 October 1971.  On 28 October 1971, he was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and confined to the post stockade pending trial by court-martial. 

On 29 October 1971, court-martial charges were preferred.  The applicant was charged with two specifications of AWOL.  The applicant stated that he went AWOL because of family and financial problems.  Although court-martial charges were preferred, there is no evidence of record that the applicant was ever court-martialed.  

Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Special Orders Number 340 reflects that the applicant was discharged by board action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with a UD.  The board proceedings and separation packaged are not in the records available to the Board.  However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that he was discharged on 6 December 1971 after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of creditable military service and accruing 81 days of lost time.  He was assigned separation program designator (SPD) code number 246 (for the good of the service).

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant’s administrative separation is presumed to have been accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

2.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which supports his contention that he needed a hardship discharge to take care of his parents.  The Board determined that, even if the applicant went AWOL in order to care for his family, this incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant’s misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or fully honorable 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 this 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

___FNE__  __BJE __  __REB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065903	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020418	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711206	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.