APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had applied for a compassionate reassignment which was unfairly denied.  His record of AWOL was only a small fraction of his service time and should be considered only minor, isolated events that should not stop his discharge from being upgraded.  He contends that he tried to serve but was denied fair consideration and therefore, was unable to complete his obligation.  In support of his request, he has included letters from the local police and sheriff’s departments attesting to the fact that he has no warrant for his arrest.  He has also included four character references from friends, a minister and a county commissioner.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years on 25 March 1974 and received an undesirable discharge on 10 October 1975.  He had 136 days of lost time.

On 22 August 1974 he accepted punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for losing his weapon.  As punishment he received a forfeiture of $75.00 pay for 1 month, reduction to pay grade E-1 and extra duty for 14 days.  His only award is the National Defense Service Medal.

On 20 September 1974 he applied for a compassionate reassignment from Fort Riley, Kansas to Fort Hood, Texas because of medical problems of his parents.  That request was denied on the basis that the medical problems of his parents were chronic and had existed at the time of his enlistment in the service.  The use of ordinary leave to be with his parents if and when surgery was performed was recommended.

On 15 April 1975 he departed AWOL, returning on 28 April 1975.  He again departed AWOL on 8 May 1975 and returned on 8 September 1975.

Charges were preferred against him on 10 September 1975 for the aforementioned AWOL periods.  Thereafter, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

In a statement setting forth his reasons for going AWOL he explained that his parents were hospitalized and he was told that it would take the same amount of months or more as it did with his last compassionate reassignment request to have another request considered, so he took it upon himself to leave.  (The record shows that at the time of his AWOL, he had three sisters and two brothers living at home with his parents, two of whom were approximately the same age as the applicant and three were younger than he).  He further stated that he believed a discharge would be best for himself, his family and the Army

On 26 September 1975 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The applicant’s request to the Discharge Review Board was not submitted within the 15 year statute of limitations for applications to be considered by that board.

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 has provided no evidence and the records contain none that support his request to upgrade his discharge.

2.  The health problems of his parents were apparently long term and existed at the time he entered the service.  Furthermore, he had brothers and sisters at home who would have been available to assist until his arrival. He would also have had the option of taking leave to assist them in an emergency.  Finally, he had the option of resubmitting another compassionate reassignment request, which he chose to disregard, had his home situation so dictated.  He chose instead to disregard these options and take matters into his own hands by going AWOL.

3.  The applicant’s character references have been noted by the Board.  While his post service conduct has apparently been laudatory it is not a sufficient basis to overcome his behavior while a soldier.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director