MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 6 September 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059591

         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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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 and that the reason for his discharge be changed.

APPLICANT STATES: That he served over 2 years on active duty and 7 months in Vietnam. He was informed of his father’s death and returned to the States on 30 days leave. When he returned to Fort Lewis, WA he was told he would be returned to Vietnam. Because of his experiences there he had no desire to return and because of his father’s death he was in a confused state of mind. He felt that if he returned to Vietnam he would die there. He was told by the Judge Advocate General’s Office that if he went absent without leave (AWOL) for 150 days or more he would be discharged so that was the course he took. He had no understanding of how this would affect his life in the future. He had no problems prior to this.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 August 1969. He completed basic combat training. He attended but did not complete 31B (Field Radio Mechanic) and 36K (Wireman) advanced individual training. He then completed 64C (Motor Transport Operator) advanced individual training.

The applicant was assigned to Germany on 15 June 1970. On 7 August 1970, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 8 August 1970. He had received a waiver for two days of lost time from 9 – 10 February 1970. He reenlisted for the Republic of Vietnam. He departed Germany on or about 1 September 1970.

On 6 November 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from the U. S. Army Overseas Replacement Station, Fort Lewis, WA from 22 to on or about 31 October 1970.

The applicant arrived in Vietnam on or about 12 November 1970 and was assigned to Company B, 554^th Engineer Battalion (Construction) as a light vehicle driver. He apparently returned to the States on emergency leave around June 1971.

On 13 September 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from the 525^th Replacement Company, Fort Lewis, WA from 16 July to on or about 25 August 1971.

On 12 October 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from the 525^th Replacement Company, Fort Lewis, WA from 17 September to on or about 5 October 1971.
On 29 October 1971, the applicant was reassigned to Company B, U. S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Lewis, WA.

The applicant departed AWOL from 1 to 11 November 1971.

On 3 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 4 December 1971 to on or about 28 February 1972.

The applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial is not available. On 24 March 1972, he signed a separate document acknowledging that he was counseled concerning the benefits of a discharge under honorable conditions and what benefits he would not receive if he were separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he did not report to the Overseas Replacement Station in 1970 because his father was very ill. After he returned he went to Vietnam but after 7 months he returned home on leave because his father died. He did not return to military control until he was picked up by the military police. He was reassigned to the Replacement Company and went AWOL for 14 days, then again for 7 days. He was reassigned to another unit and he went AWOL for 59 days. He returned hoping he would get a discharge. His wife was six months pregnant and she was only 15 years old.

On 30 March 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 12 April 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 17 April 1972, 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 2 years, 2 months and 20 days of creditable active service and had a total of 156 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.

On 17 March 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 or unjust. 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.

3. The evidence of record shows that he had a record of AWOL prior to his father becoming ill around October 1970. It shows that he had been counseled how his discharge UOTHC could affect his life. Considering the number and length of his AWOL periods, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate and the reason for his discharge is correct.

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

__lls___ __mhm___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059591
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010906
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720417
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.