MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            25 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081496

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That there is no error.  He claims that he was just too young and wanted out of the service.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1971 for a period of three years.  He was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for basic combat training (BCT).  While in BCT, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 December 1971 to 4 January 1972.

Upon completion of BCT, the applicant was reassigned to the U.S. Army Training Center at Fort Ord, California.  He received nonjudicial punishment on 20 March 1972, for wrongfully appropriating a tape recorder of a value of $40.00.

The applicant was assigned to the 172nd Infantry Brigade in Alaska on 31 May 1972.  He received nonjudicial punishment on 14 August 1972 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order from his superior squad leader.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 November 1972 for being AWOL from 5 September 1972 to 1 October 1972 and from 4 October 1972 to 12 November 1972.

On 13 November 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant did not submit statements in his own behalf.  

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

On 17 November 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

The applicant was discharged on 24 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 9 months of creditable service with 90 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 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.  

2.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

4.  Records show the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments and was AWOL on three separate occasions for a total of 90 days.

5.  The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, the characterization of the applicant’s current discharge is appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, inequity, or change in policy or standards on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.

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

JNS_____  REB____  LF______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081496	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030225	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721124	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.