MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           9 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064870

	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	
	Mr. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 discharge be upgraded to general or honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and made a mistake that has adversely affected him the rest of his life.  He states that he and his family are ashamed of his actions.  He asks that his discharge be upgraded as it is interfering with his starting a small business.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 15 July 1971 at age 17.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 8 August 1971, 24 days later.  The applicant remained AWOL until 13 May 1975, when he returned to military control of his own volition. 

On 21 May 1975, the applicant consulted with military counsel and requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He requested military counsel but waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

The discharge authority accepted the applicant's request and directed that he be separated under the Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 13 June 1975.  He was shown as having 1 month and 24 days of creditable service, 707 days lost prior to his expiration of time in service (ETS), 667 days lost subsequent to his ETS, with 8 days of excess leave. 

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.

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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  While the applicant was 17 when he volunteered for military service, he has not documented that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their enlistments.

3.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's current personal problem are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge nor is there any evidence of post service accomplishments so noteworthy as to warrant relief.

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

__JHL___  ___JNS _  __TLP______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064870	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020509	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9301	
2.	144.9221	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.