MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            3 October 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077086

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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:  This is the only bad mark against him; it has greatly affected his life and he did not know the impact this would have on his future.  After leaving the Army he has been a productive member of his community, been married for 27 years, owns his own business and is currently working with the Veterans Administration to get his GED (general education diploma).  He also states that he was born to a mentally challenged unwed mother and was raised by his grandmother, who died while he was in the Army.  He went AWOL for a while and when he returned, he tried to talk to his superiors about his problem, but they did not seem to understand.  Unfortunately, he just got out of the Army any way he could, a big mistake that he would like to change.  He submits five character letters in support of his application.

The letters are supportive character references for his post service conduct.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1 on 5 December 1972.

He completed his basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63H20, Automotive Repairman.

He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 5 April 1973.

He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 15 November 1973.  He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 15 December 1973.

He surrendered to military authorities on 5 March 1974.

He was reported AWOL on 10 March 1974.

He surrendered to military authorities on 22 April 1974.

On 4 June 1974, a special court-martial convened and charged the applicant with 1 specification of being absent from his unit from on or about 15 November 1973 to on or about 5 March 1974 and 1 specification of being absent from his unit from on or about 10 March to on or about 22 April 1974.

After entering a plea of guilty to both charges, he was found guilty and sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of pay for 3 months.  The sentence was adjudged on 16 May 1974, and approved on 4 June 1974.
On 2 July 1974 a report of mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.

He was discharged on 16 July 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness, in pay grade E-1, and issued a UD certificate.  He was credited with 11 months and 24 days of total net active service.  He had 228 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

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

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5(a)1 provided for the separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, sexual perversion, drug abuse, shirking, failure to pay just debts, failure to support dependents and homosexual acts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted a UD was normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  The Board has noted his contentions that he went AWOL for a while and when he returned, he tried to talk to his superiors about his problem, but they did not seem to understand.  However, there is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of the type or extent of his personal problems and why he went AWOL the first time.

3.  The Board also notes his contentions that he just got out of the Army any way he could and unfortunately this was a big mistake that he would like to change. However, while the applicant may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.  

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

5.  The post service character references have been noted, but do not mitigate his misconduct for an upgrade of his UD.

6.  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.

7.  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

_INW__  __WTM___  _CG____   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077086	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021003	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.