APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge/under conditions other than honorable (UD) be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: The applicant has included no specific contentions in his application. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant entered the Regular Army on 4 May 1971 for a period of 3 years. At the time of his enlistment the applicant was 17 years of age. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Lewis, Washington and was assigned to Fort Ord, California to attend advanced individual training. On 7 September 1971 the applicant departed AWOL from Fort Ord, was dropped from the rolls on 5 October 1971 and returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on or about 18 October 1971 (41 days). On 16 November 1971 the applicant accepted non judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ for two specifications of violation of Article 86 (AWOL). The first specification covered the period the applicant was AWOL from Fort Ord, 7 September-18 October 1971 and the second specification was for an AWOL period 21-22 October (1 day) from Fort Leonard Wood. On 27 January 1972 the applicant accepted a second NJP for violation of Article 86 (AWOL) between 7-11 January 1972 (5 days). The applicant successfully completed training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C at Fort Leonard Wood and was placed on assignment orders to Germany. The applicant went AWOL from the overseas replacement station at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 9 June 1972, was dropped from the rolls on 12 June 1972 and returned to military control on 13 September 1972 (97 days). On 3 October 1972 court martial charges were preferred against the applicant via a DD Form 458 (charge sheet) prepared at the personnel confinement facility, Fort Riley, Kansas. On 4 October 1972 while consulting with counsel the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court martial. The applicant also as part of his request attested to his understanding of the ramifications of an undesirable discharge and to the fact that the action he was taking was voluntary and not coerced. On 4 October 1972 the applicant's unit and intermediate level commanders recommended approval of the applicant's request and a UD. On 5 October 1972 the applicant was placed on excess leave pending the processing of his request, until 16 October 1972 at which time he failed to return and was again placed in an AWOL status. On 12 October 1972 the appropriate commander approved the discharge and directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued. Accordingly, on 19 October 1972 the applicant was discharged while in an AWOL status after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 15 days of active military service and accruing 121 days of time lost. 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 included 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 a UD. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. 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. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. 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. 4. 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