2. The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD), issued as a result of separation in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for absence without leave (AWOL), be upgraded to honorable. 3. The applicant states that, when he went AWOL back in 1974, it was because his father was in the hospital for back surgery. While hospitalized, he developed pneumonia and almost died. The applicant stated that he stayed with his Dad until he was home from the hospital and able to fend for himself, then he turned himself in to military authorities. He adds that he is sorry for his mistake and seeks forgiveness; that he has been a good, law-abiding citizen, husband, and father since his separation. 4. The applicant was born on 16 November 1953 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 10 July 1972. Following completion of the required military training, he completed the basic airborne training program and was assigned to a unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with duty as an airborne infantryman. 5. The applicant’s military record shows that he was an excellent soldier from the time of his enlistment until he went AWOL on 12 March 1974. He was promoted to the rank of Specialist (E-4) on 1 March 1974; he had several letters of appreciation and commendation, and no disciplinary actions. 6. When he returned to military control on 26 June 1974, the applicant was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and court-martial charges were preferred against him for the period of AWOL. After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged under the provisions of chapter l0, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He submitted no statement in his behalf. 7. The applicant’s request for discharge was accepted and the approving authority directed that he be separated with a UD. On 9 August 1974, he was discharged with a UD. He had 1 year, 9 months, and 13 days of creditable service and 107 days of lost time due to AWOL. 8. In the processing of this case, coordination was made with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to determine whether the applicant had a criminal record. There is no evidence of criminal activity on file with the FBI. 9. 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. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in order to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. 2. The applicant was a good soldier whose only violation was one period of AWOL lasting 107 days. Although it cannot be confirmed, the applicant claims that he went home to care for his father who was seriously ill. It can, however, be confirmed that the applicant has led a law-abiding life in the years since his discharge 3. Although the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, the character of that discharge is not commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. For that reason, and because of his good post-service behavior, it would be unjust and inequitable to make the applicant continue to live with the stigma of a UD. 4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest of justice and equity, it would, therefore, be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as indicated below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 9 August 1974. 2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate, dated 9 August 1974, in lieu of the UD of the same date now held by him. 3. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON