ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2001064024
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  12 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001064024

	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. Joyce A. Wright | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | | Chairperson
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | | Member
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | | 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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his undesirable discharge should be upgraded.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 24 October 1975, as a memorial activities specialist.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 18 August 1976, of being AWOL from 2 to 8 June 1976 (6 days) and from 15 to 29 June 1976 (14 days).  His
sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay,
and confinement at hard labor for 2 months.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 24 May 1977, and was found qualified for separation.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 17 May 1977, for being AWOL from 28 February to 9 May 1977 (71 days).

On 31 May 1977, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated, in summary, that his family problems were contributing factors to his acts of indiscipline.

On 7 July 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 21 July 1977.  He had a total of 
1 year, 3 months, and 16 days of creditable service and had 162 days of lost time.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 16 August 1977.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 24 May 
1979.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of 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 this 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

__iw___  ___gw_____  ___rw____DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2001064024
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20020312
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19751024
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR  635-200  C, 10
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  189 |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |