MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 16 May 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001065254

         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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member
Ms. Paula Mokulis		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); that the reason for discharge and separation program designator (SPD) code be changed; and that his reentry eligibility (RE) Code be changed from RE-4 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES: That clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a UD. He states that his conduct and efficiency ratings and behavior were good and he had prior honorable service. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an isolated or minor offense. His absence without leave (AWOL) offense was also an isolated or minor offense. His ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, and financial, marital and personal problems. The punishment that he received was severe compared to today's standard. He has also been a good citizen and steadily employed with the government for 20 years. In support of his request, he submits: copies of DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for service from 17 January 1968 - 18 September 1968 and from 19 September 1968 - 7 July 1971; letters of appreciation, dated 13 May 1983 and 30 March 1984; and civilian performance ratings ending on 31 August 1990, 31 August 1991 and 31 August 1994.

The applicant also contends in a statement written to the Board that he has recently experienced a heart condition that has left him disabled and his medical bills are mounting. The Department of Veterans Affairs told him that they could not help him due to his characterization of service. An upgrade of his discharge may afford him the opportunity to be buried on Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois, with his parents. He may also be authorized some medical benefits. He states that he went AWOL because he requested ordinary leave to be with his wife during the birth of his son and he was refused. His work history, progress reports, and promotion record shows that he was an exceptional worker.

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

That prior to the period of enlistment under review, he served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 17 January 1968 - 18 September 1968.

On 19 September 1968, while assigned in Germany, at age 19, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for 3 years, his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Repairman), and pay grade E-3.

Order Number 59, 68^th Transportation Company, 28^th Transportation Battalion, dated 17 September 1969, shows that the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for misconduct. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $15.00 pay per month for 1 month. The original NJP proceedings are not contained in the record.

On 5 May 1970, the applicant left Germany enroute to an assignment in the United States Army Pacific (USARPAC). He failed to report and, on 14 June 1970, he was placed in an AWOL status. He remained AWOL until he returned to military control at Fort Lewis, Washington, on 26 May 1971.

The applicant's records do not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process. However, his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that was prepared at the time of separation and authenticated by the applicant. His DD Form 214 shows that, on 7 July 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of active military service and he had 343 days of lost time on the enlistment under review, due to being AWOL. He also had completed 8 months of prior active military service. He was assigned an RE Code of RE-4.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 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 a UD.

An RE Code of RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service. Those individuals discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 are assigned an RE Code of RE-4 and they are disqualified from further service. The disqualification is nonwaivable.

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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service. The facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing; however, his records show the commission of at least one offense that was punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. He would have then been required to consult with defense counsel and would have been required to sign a statement indicating that he had been informed that he could receive a UD and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge. He would have voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial. The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process. The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.

3. The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4. The applicant's characterization of service, his reason for separation, SPD code, and RE code were, and still are, appropriate taking into consideration the fact that he was AWOL 343 days.

5. The Board determined that even if the applicant had personal problems and he was denied the opportunity to take leave, he had many other legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance without going AWOL.

6. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature at the time that he reenlisted. However, he met entrance qualification standards and the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers who successfully completed their military service obligation.

7. The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments and empathizes with him concerning his health problems. However, post service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

8. 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

___fne___ ____pm _ ___rwa _ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065254
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020516
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710707
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200
DISCHARGE REASON	A01.43
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.0143
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.