MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082964

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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 his discharge should be upgraded because he should never have been drafted.

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

He was inducted in Nashville, Tennessee, on 28 July 1969, and was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to undergo basic combat training (BCT).

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 16 September 1969, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 19 November 1970, while still in BCT, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 December 1969 until 11 December 1969 and from 16 December 1969 until 21 October 1970.

After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 7 January 1971. Accordingly, on 18 January 1971, the applicant was discharged 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 completed 7 months and 13 days of total active service and he had 314 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

On 28 September 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an 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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he should not have been drafted is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  He had NJP imposed against him and he had 314 days of lost time due to AWOL.  The character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

4.  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.

5.  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

___fe ___  __hof___  ___mt ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082964	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710118	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.  713	144.7110	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.