MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 7 August 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001056203

         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. E. Schnupp		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was 17 years old when he entered the Army. During his basic training he was frequently ill and hospitalized which demoralized him. After completing Advanced Individual Training (AIT), he was Absent Without Leave (AWOL), got in trouble and served 71/2 months in jail. Upon his release, the Military Police picked him up and he was locked up again. A military lawyer told him to sign for the discharge or get a dishonorable one. Due to all of his sickness, he was depressed and he was young. He says that he realizes that’s not a good excuse but it’s the truth. Now he is disabled and wants to upgrade his discharge so he can get help from the Department of Veterans Affairs. He says that President Carter gave people that went to Canada instead of going into the military decent discharges and since he tried the military he should have one also.

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

He was born on 25 December 1955 and enlisted in the Regular Army for four years with parental consent on 27 December 1972. He completed AIT, but prior to reporting to his first duty station he departed AWOL. He was discharged at his own request, for the good of the service, on 12 March 1974, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulations (AR) 635-200 with 196 days lost time.

The applicant’s medical records show that he was treated for pain in the back and lungs on 28 January 1973, and again on 31 January 1973 for the same symptoms. He was then admitted to the hospital for recurrent pneumonia. He was admitted again on 22 February 1973 and treated for an upper respiratory infection. Upon completion of treatment, he was released to duty with temporary assignment limitations. On 7 March 1973 he was seen in consultation for knee pain, and on 1 April 1973 for an urethral discharge. He was seen again in January 1974 for an injury to his left middle finger.

The applicant’s physical examination on 22 January 1974, reflects his statement of his own health as “good,” and contains no significant findings noted by the examining physician. Accordingly, he was found qualified for separation with all “1” in his physical profile.

On 16 January 1974, charges were preferred against him for violation of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (AWOL), for the period 2 July 1973 to 14 January 1974.

On 18 January 1974 the applicant requested that he be discharged for the good of the service. In his request, he acknowledged that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that because of such a discharge he could be deprived of many or all of his Army and Veterans Administration (VA) benefits. In a statement accompanying his request for discharge, he indicated that he disliked the military, could not adjust to military life and that an undesirable discharge was fine with him.

The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 5 February 1974 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

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.

Department of Defense (DoD) Special Discharge Review Program. On 4 April 1977 the DoD directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973. This program, known as the DoD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge. Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which jeopardized his rights.

2. Coincident with his request for discharge, he was advised of the effects a discharge under other than honorable conditions might have on his Army and VA benefits. Despite this admonition, he indicated that he could not adjust to the Army and that an undesirable discharge was fine with him. Considering that he was AWOL for over six months of his eight months active duty time, it does not appear that an under other than honorable discharge was too severe a punishment.

3. The applicant's contention that he was young and depressed because of his many illnesses at the time does not warrant the relief he requests. While the Board is empathetic, his personal problems were no greater than those faced by his contemporaries both then and now, who manage to work through their difficulties and receive a discharge with honor. Thus, the Board finds that the applicant’s age and the medical conditions he presents as being the basis of his lengthy AWOL are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4. The applicant’s reference to President Carter’ discharge program is actually the DoD SDRP, often referred to as the “Carter Program.” It mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of the specified criteria. The applicant, however, was not eligible for consideration under this program because only discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973 were eligible for upgrade. The applicant was discharged on 12 March 1974. Even if he had been eligible, he did not meet any of the specified or so-called “other” criteria that would have been considered under the program.

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

____mkp_ ___tpr _ ___rks___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056203
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20010807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740312
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chap.10
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 144.01
2. 144.71
3.
4.
5.
6.