MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 August 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001055867

         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
Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: That he enlisted because he thought it would help his mother financially. He wanted to go to Vietnam but his supervisors would not process his request and he was sent to Fort Bragg instead. He was disappointed and went home on leave. This disappointment, plus family hardships, caused him to overstay his leave. He was confined and it became obvious to him that his Army life was going to be a series of unpleasant detail assignments. He returned home again and stayed for several months until he was picked up and returned to military control. While he was in confinement, he was asked if he would like to get out of the Army. It was explained to him that the Army would allow him to resign for the convenience of the Government. He agreed to do this and he was told that he would be given an Undesirable Discharge but it would automatically be upgraded to a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions after six months. He realizes he did wrong but he was young and relatively immature. His intent was to help his family and serve his country but events took an unwelcome turn and he did not handle things well. He provides his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 25 July 1948. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 March 1968. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63H (Engine and Powertrain Repairman). He was initially assigned to Fort Bragg, NC. Orders dated 18 November 1968 assigned him to the 21^st Adjutant General Replacement Battalion, Germany with an expected departure date of 11 December 1968.

On 13 February 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 December 1968 to 16 January 1969. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months, suspended, and to forfeit $70.00 pay for 4 months. The suspended sentence of confinement at hard labor for 4 months was vacated on 1 April 1969.

On 9 April 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself from bedcheck.

On 19 February 1970, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 23 June 1969 – 14 February 1970.

On or about 4 March 1970, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

On 7 April 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 10 April 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 11 months and 18 days of creditable active service and had 405 days of lost time.

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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically stated that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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. 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The document he signed clearly indicated his request was to avoid trial by court-martial and not “for the convenience of the Government.”

3. The Board notes that the applicant was 20 years old when he first departed AWOL on the date he was due to depart for assignment to Germany. Many soldiers his age and younger are able to successfully complete their terms of service. Considering the length of his two periods of AWOL, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.

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

__wtm___ __jrs___ __reb___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055867
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010814
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700410
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.