MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            11 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079047

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Antonio Uribe		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, during his service, he was experiencing a tremendous change both racially and morally.  He states that he was young and found it difficult to adjust to military life.  He states that he did not volunteer for the Army, but he tried to serve honorably.

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

On 21 August 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He successfully competed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit Organization Supply Specialist).  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.

The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the following three occasions for the offenses indicated: 15 September 1969, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; 20 December 1969, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; and 2 January 1970, for breaking restriction.  In addition, he was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 February 1971, of six specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL). 

The applicant’s discharge packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing is not in the record.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority and reason for discharge.  This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature, and it confirms that the authority for his separation was chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and the reason for his discharge was for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The DD Form 214 also shows that on 3 August 1971, he received an UD after completing a total of 
1 year and 1 day of creditable active military service, and having accrued 348 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

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 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.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded based upon the racial and moral climate of the country during his term of enlistment, and because his youth impaired his ability to adjust to military service.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to show that any racial factors existed or that his youth and immaturity contributed to his misconduct.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to his discharge from the Army.  The Board notes that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature, and it presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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

__SAC__  __RKS  _  __ AU  __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079047	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710803	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR625-200 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Trial by CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0133	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.