MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           30 January 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078322

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He states that, at the time of the discharge, he was young and having family problems.  An officer told him it would be better for the service if he took the undesirable discharge.  He just wanted to go home.

He submits statements from his sister, a friend and a minister.  He also submits a report from the local sheriff.

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

He was inducted and entered active duty on 11 June 1969.  He was 20 years old, married and had a step daughter.  

The applicant completed training as an artilleryman with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings and without a discreditable incident of record.  He was under orders to Vietnam when he failed to report to the overseas replacement station.  He was then absent without leave AWOL from 4 November 1969 to 5 January 1970, from 11 January to 17 May 1970 and 29 June to 26 August 1970.  On 2 October 1970 he was separated with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 7 months and 13 days of creditable service and 246 days AWOL.  The discharge processing documents are not contained in the available records. 

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the allowed 15-year time frame.

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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

The letter from the applicant's sister states that he has been doing good for the past 9 years but that he has lots of medical problems and needs all the help he can get.  The friend states that she and her husband have known the applicant for 2 or 3 years and that he is a "gift of help" but that he has many health problems.  The minister writes that the applicant is a faithful worker in the church. He participates in outreach programs and is part of extra fellowships.  He helps those less fortunate than himself and has been a "special influence and inspiration in my family."  The sheriff's report shows that the applicant's most recent of five arrests occurred in February 1988 and resulted in a 15-year sentence for his second conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.  

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 is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  The applicant's undocumented assertion of family problems and his contention that he was young and immature have been noted, but he demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training and approximately 6 months of service with excellent ratings and without a discreditable incident of record.

3.  The evidence of the applicant's recent behavior and the indications that he has turned his life around have been considered but these factors fail to outweigh the negative aspects of his military record.

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 this 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

__WTM__  __CJP__  __YM ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078322	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20030130 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, CH 10  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.