MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           10 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080268

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was on drugs and made mistakes that led to his discharge.  He states that is now in a rehabilitation program and requests a personal appearance before the Board.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 24 June 1968.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Crewman). 

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 30 August 1968 for being absent without leave from 26 August 1968 through 28 August 1968.

On 8 November 1968, a special court-martial found him guilty of being AWOL from 15 September 1968 through 10 October 1968 and, on 17 February 1969, a summary court-martial found him guilty of being AWOL from 5 January 1969 through 6 February 1969.

He went AWOL a fourth time on 13 March 1969.  Court-martial charges were preferred for AWOL from 13 March 1969 through 17 May 1969.

On 19 May 1969, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ) that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge. 
 
The discharge authority accepted his request and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge.  

The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1969 under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he had 6 months and 16 days of creditable service with 163 days lost due to AWOL.  

There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that he had any type of drug or family problems at the time of his discharge.  Nor are there any medical records available that indicate that the applicant was treated for drug abuse while in the service.

On 9 April 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.   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.  His service is appropriately characterized by his overall record.

2.  The applicant has provided no documentation of any drug problem.  While the Board notes the candid admission of a drug problem and the reported current participation in a rehabilitation program, it finds that, in light of his very brief undistinguished service and the offenses that led to his discharge, these factors are insufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

3.  Furthermore, the Board rejects the implication that illegal drug abuse necessarily mitigates both itself and the effects thereof.

4.  There is no statutory or regulatory right to a personal appearance hearing.  Formal hearings are granted only when it has been determined that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information.  A formal hearing is not warranted in this case.

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

__sac___  __slp  ___  _ jtm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080268	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Upgrade	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.