MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001065910

	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	
	Mr. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyl		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 the following items of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 9 February 2001 be changed: (1) item 12b (Separation Date This Period); (2) item 18 (Remarks);    (3) item 23 (Type Of Separation); (4) item 24 (Character of Service); (5) item 25 (Separation Authority; (6) item 26 (Separation Code; (7) item 27 (Reentry Code); (8) item 28 (Narrative Reason For Separation); and (9) item 29 (Dates Of Time Lost During This Period).

APPLICANT STATES: That he completed basic training with the intention of making the Army a career.  He now feels the circumstances that followed were an unfortunate mistake.  He relates the details of his enlistment and completion of basic training with a fractured foot.  He indicates he went on leave and his car broke down on the way to the airport.  He indicates he spoke with his unit and local recruiters, and over 4 months later, a recruiter arranged for a plane ticket to Louisville, Kentucky.  He reported to and was out-processed from Fort Knox.  

He states the circumstances leading to his AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and discharge were beyond his control.

The applicant did not specify what the requested items should be corrected to show.

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

During the period 8 February through 31 March 1999, the applicant was a member of the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.

On 1 April 1999, he enlisted in the Regular Army; in pay grade E-2, for 3 years.

On 21 June 1999, although not in the available records, the evidence shows he was issued nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for an unidentified offense.  A portion of the punishment was reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1.

On 8 August 1999, he absented himself by not returning from ordinary leave.  

On 13 December 1999, he surrendered to military control at a recruiting station in West Palm Beach, Florida and was transported to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

On 21 December 1999, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave for the period 9 August through        12 December 1999.

On 21 December 1999, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
10.  He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.

On 22 December 1999, the applicant was placed on excess leave for an indefinite period.

On 19 December 2000, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a UOTHC discharge be issued.

On 9 February 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UOTHC discharge, under the above-cited regulation.  His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 6 months and 3 days of creditable service, 126 days of lost time and 416 days of excess leave.  He was assigned an RE-4.

On 14 December 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be 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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The Board has noted all the items of his DD Form 214 that he wishes to have changed; however, there is no error or injustice in any of the items.  He has not shown otherwise.

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

_mdm_____  _kak____  _tl_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065910	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020423	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.