MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080364

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that if it is possible, he would like his UD upgraded to a GD. 

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

On 2 December 1971, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for 
2 years, and that he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, to attend 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 still in basic training, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) on 31 January 1972, and he remained away until returning to military control on 28 February 1972.  On 29 February 1972, he again departed AWOL, and this time he remained away until 19 March 1972.  

On 31 March 1972, the applicant departed his unit AWOL a third time, and he remained away until returning to military control on 30 April 1972.  On 3 May 1973, a court-martial charge were preferred against him for this period AWOL. 

On 3 May 1973, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the bases for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a discharge UD, and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His accompanying statement outlined the financial problems his family has endured since his induction to the Army and the need he felt to be home to support his wife and kids.

The applicant’s request for discharge was approved, and on 15 May 1972, he received an UD after completing a total of just 2 months and 14 days of creditable active military service and accruing 90 days of time lost 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 statue of limitation.

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.

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 evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  

2.  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, and that the discharge accurately reflects the applicant’s short and undistinguished record of service.   Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge is not warranted at this time.  

3.  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.

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

__JHL__  __  LE   _  __ ALR  __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080364	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720515	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-299.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Trail by CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.	144.9307	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.