MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079413

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Ms. Linda M. Barker		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he join the Army to fight for his country in Vietnam.  However, given his lack of education and because he cannot read or write, the recruiter completed his enlistment paperwork.  He states that he tried to serve and since President Carter gave amnesty to everyone, he now feels an upgrade of his discharge is warranted.

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

On 10 February 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67A (Aircraft Maintenance), and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for basic combat training.  His records reveal no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank he attained while on active duty was 
private/E-1.

While assigned to Fort Campbell, the applicant was convicted by a special 
court-martial on 8 April 1970, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 to 
22 March 1970.  The resultant sentence included confinement for one month and forfeiture of $50.00 pay for two months.  

The applicant also went AWOL from 6 May 1970 to 20 March 1972, and again from 26 April 1972 to 5 May 1972.  His unit commander initiated separation action on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, for unauthorized absence in excess of one year based on his AWOL period from 6 May 1970 to 20 March 1972.  After acknowledging receipt of the separation action, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by appointed counsel, and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

On 21 April 1972, the separation action was approved by the appropriate authority.  On 5 May 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 2 months and 
7 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 739 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

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

Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Section VII of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that individuals may be considered for discharge when it is determined by administrative review of all facts that there is substantial evidence to support a determination of desertion or absence without leave. The unauthorized absence has continued for more than 1 year and the retention of the individual is precluded by regulations or is not considered desirable or in the best interest of the United States.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his lack of education impaired his ability to serve and that an upgrade to his discharge is warranted based on the amnesty granted by President Carter.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to show these factors are sufficiently mitigation to warrant the requested relief. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that his discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  In order to justify correction of a military 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

__RJW__  __WDP _  __ LMB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079413	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/04	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.