ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2002080002
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  29 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002080002

	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:

| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | | Chairperson
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | | Member
| Mr. Lester Echols | | 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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his records are probably not in error.  He attempted to enter the service 4-5 years prior to his induction but they would not take him.  Just prior to his induction, he was married.  His father passed away while he was serving in Vietnam and he was able to take leave.  At that time, his mother had no one to care for her and he applied for a hardship discharge but was unable to receive one.  He was attached to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama pending the final decision of his hardship discharge.  He also states that his first sergeant destroyed his papers.  He got mad and went AWOL and has regretted it ever since.  He was young and immature; however, that was no excuse.  He is requesting that his discharge be upgraded in order to make his family proud. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was inducted on 1 August 1968, as a field artilleryman.  He served in Vietnam as an infantryman from 15 February to 4 May 1969.

Between September and November 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from 15 to 17 September 1968 (2 days) and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishments consisted of forfeitures of pay, restrictions, and extra duties.

The applicant's records contain a copy of a letter that was prepared by the assistant adjutant of his overseas command, on 2 October 1969, Subject:  AWOL/ Deserter status.  The letter indicated that the applicant was attached to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama pending approval/disapproval of his application for a hardship discharge. 

The assistant administrative officer of Headquarters, US Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama prepared a follow-up letter, dated 21 October 1969.  The letter indicated that the applicant was attached on 5 April 1969 to apply for a hardship discharge.  However, the applicant did not comply with instructions to obtain and furnish the proper documents to process his application.  There was no record of an application from the applicant at that installation.  The applicant was released from attachment and directed to return to his unit of assignment.

Item 44 (Time Lost) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that the applicant was AWOL from 4 May 1969 to 19 April 1970 (350 days), 17 May to 4 July 1970 (49 days) and confined from 5 July to 7 August (31 days), 9 September to 23 October 1970 (45 days), and from 20 April to 16 May 1970 (27 days).

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 19 February 1971, for being AWOL from 10 August to 6 September 1970 (27 days) and from 24 October 1970 to 10 February 1971 (109 days).

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 19 February 1971, and was found qualified for separation.

On 23 February 1971, 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 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 an undesirable discharge were issued.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 22 March 1971, 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 26 March 1971.  He had a total of 10 months, and 22 days of creditable service and had 642 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 29 September 1975.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 11 May 1976.

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 Board notes the applicant's contentions.  The evidence of record shows that he was attached pending approval/disapproval of his request for a hardship discharge.  However, the applicant did not comply with instructions to obtain and furnish the proper documents for his application.  There was no record of an application and the applicant was released from attachment and directed to return to his unit of assignment.

2.  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.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The Board notes the applicant's extensive absence totaling 642 days during his period of service.  Such a quantity of absence is too serious to be excused or to warrant relief.

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

__ls___  __fj____  __le______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002080002
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 20030529
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19710326
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapt 10
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 191/360
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |