APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his father died thinking he was no good and that he would like his name cleared for his wife and children. He additionally claims that he has suffered enough for a foolish mistake when he was younger. A letter of support for the applicant’s request, from the Chaplain of the Canadian Vietnam Veterans Association of London located in London, Ontario Canada, is enclosed with his application. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 27 November 1968 he reenlisted in the Regular Army at Long Binh, Vietnam for a period of 6 six years. At the time of his reenlistment he had completed 5 months of his overseas service, 1 year and 26 days of prior honorable military service, held military occupation specialty (MOS) 76P (Repair Parts Specialist), and had attained the rank of specialist/E-4. His awards and decorations include the National Defense Service Medal; the Vietnam Service Medal; and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device. The applicant's record is void of any significant acts of achievement, valor, or service meriting special recognition and or evidence of disciplinary infractions prior to the incident for which separation action was accomplished. The applicant went AWOL from his unit in Vietnam on 19 December 1968 and attempted to leave Vietnam with another soldier’s record and port call on 12 January 1969 at which time he was apprehended and returned to his unit. The evidence of record indicates that on 3 February 1969 a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring two charges against the applicant which included violations of two Articles of the UCMJ. The first contained two specifications of violation of Article 85 (Desertion) and the second was for one specification of violation of Article 134 (possession of unauthorized documents with the intent to deceive). The record also contains documented evidence that on 4 March 1969 the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Chapter 10 of AR 635-200. This request was made after the applicant had been advised by counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a UD. The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law. The applicant also stated that under no circumstances did he desire to perform further military service. On 20 March 1969 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD. Accordingly, on 25 March 1969 the applicant was discharged after completing 3 months and 3 days of his current period of service, a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 29 days of active military service, and accruing 26 days of time lost due to AWOL. 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 are 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 a UD. 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 Board acknowledges the applicant’s desire to remove the stigma of his discharge. However, after carefully reviewing the applicant’s entire service record, the Board did not find said desire sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 2. The Board noted that the applicant reenlisted at age 21, after already completing 5 months in Vietnam. This indicates that he was no less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service. The applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ. 3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military 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 the aforementioned 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director