MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075521

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his prior good service should have been considered.  He provides no supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:   Counsel makes no contention.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1969.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12A (Pioneer).

On 2 April 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  On 20 July 1970, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty.  On 21 January 1971, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his place of duty and disobeying a lawful order. On 19 February 1971, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for absenting himself from his unit.  On 5 March 1971, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for absenting himself from his place of duty and breaking restriction.

On 28 April 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 to on or about 17 March 1971, from 17 to on or about 29 March 1971, and from 1 April to on or about 5 April 1971.  He was sentenced to forfeit $95.00 pay and to be confined at hard labor for       14 days.  

On 8 June 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 21 May to on or about 3 June 1971.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1 and to be confined at hard labor for 14 days.  

On 23 August 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 21 January 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the periods 22 November to on or about                   2 December 1971 and from 7 December 1971 to on or about 20 January 1972.

On 28 January 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 7 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.

On 3 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 1 day of creditable active service and had 90 days of lost time. 

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, 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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 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.

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.  Considering the numerous acts of misconduct noted in the applicant's records throughout his service, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.  An upgrade of his discharge to either general under honorable conditions or to fully honorable is not warranted.

3.  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

__RVO__  __TBR  _  __DPH __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075521	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/04/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 65-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.