MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002074588

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		Member	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		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 to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and did not think through the situation of leaving his post and is sorry for leaving without permission.  He also states that he was not aware that he could ask for an upgrade of his discharge.  He further states that he was given the option of community service for 6 months, which he completed at a Vocational School in Piqua, Ohio and was issued a clemency discharge for his community service.  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 
19 February 1971, as a food service specialist.

On 9 July 1971, the applicant departed AWOL while enroute to his overseas assignment to Germany.  

He was apprehended by civilian authorities on 6 August 1974 and was returned to military control on 8 August 1974.

Item 4 (Time lost under) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 9 July 1971 to 4 August 1974 (1,123 days).

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 13 September 1974, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 5 months, and 29 days of creditable service and 956 days of lost time due to AWOL prior to his scheduled expiration term of service (ETS) and 167 days of lost time due to AWOL subsequent to his normal ETS.

The applicant 's records contain a copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214/Report of Separation from Active Duty), dated 21 July 1976, which shows item 27 of his DD Form 214 was corrected to read "DD Form 1953A Clemency Discharge issued in recognition of satisfactory completion of alternate service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313."  

The applicant's records contain a copy of a letter, dated 13 August 1976, from the Director, Personnel Services.  The letter informed the applicant that he had completed his alternate service pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation 4313, that he had been issued a Clemency Discharge, and that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.

Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers, who voluntarily
entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically 
designated for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for
AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Under this
proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge
for the good of the service with the understanding that they would receive an
undesirable discharge.  Upon successful completion of the specified alternative
service, the deserter was issued a clemency discharge.  A clemency discharge does not restore veterans benefit; rather, it restores federal and, in most instances state civil rights which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge.  If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of alternative service the original characterization of service, undesirable, would be retained.

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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

2.  Accordingly, the type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  The applicant
was issued a Clemency Discharge under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313.

4.  The Board notes that participation and successful completion of the Clemency Program did not provide for an upgrade of an individual’s discharge.  It simply restored rights that were otherwise lost had individuals not participated.

5.  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.

6.  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

__mp___  ___mb___  ___jp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074588	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740913	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  c, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.