MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        
        

         BOARD DATE: 30 January 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002076798

         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. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his service records contain numerous errors and falsehoods; that his UD is based upon periods of absence without leave (AWOL) for which he was never "picked up," but for which he voluntarily returned to military control and "paid his fines and spent time in the stockade." He adds that his periods of AWOL were due to family illnesses/problems and that one period of AWOL took place after the death of his father. He indicates that he was only 17 years old when he experienced the bloodshed of Vietnam and that he has not been in any trouble since being separated. He submits in support of his request a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and Discharge Certificate; a letter ordering him not to reenter the limits of Fort Gordon, Georgia; enlistment records; an enlistment qualification record; an immunization record; and military pay leave and earning statements.

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

He was born on 6 November 1949 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 17 August 1967. Because he was not yet 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment, he obtained a declaration of parental consent signed by both of his parents on 14 August 1967.

The applicant completed Basic Combat Training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Advanced Individual Training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman). He was then transferred to Vietnam where he served with Company E, 4th Battalion, 3rd Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division from 13 January 1968 to 12 January 1969. Throughout this period of service, the applicant's conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent and there is no evidence of any indiscipline.

Following his service in Vietnam, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas. On 24 February 1969, he went AWOL and he remained in an AWOL status until he returned to military control at Fort Hood on 6 March 1969. On 11 March 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 60 days) and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was also AWOL from 15-28 December 1969, but it is uncertain whether he was punished for this offense. On 17 January 1970, the applicant left Fort Hood in a casual leave status enroute to Germany. On 15 February 1970, the applicant went into an AWOL status and he remained AWOL until he returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Gordon, Georgia, on 4 June 1972.

On 8 June 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 15 February 1970 to 4 June 1972. On 12 June 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD and he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant was AWOL from the PCF from 10 July 1972-6 November 1972. On 9 November 1972, a personnel officer interviewed the applicant and the applicant stated that "he was sent to court and found not guilty, then he just decided not to come back to the Army."

On 30 November 1972, the applicant's chain of command denied his request for separation for the good of the service and indicated that he should be tried by a court-martial authorized to direct a bad conduct discharge. However, on 31 January 1973, while the applicant was still assigned to the PCF, his commander recommended that his request for discharge for the good of the service be approved and that he be issued a UD. On an unknown date, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.

On 12 February 1973, the applicant was assigned to the Army Transfer Point, Fort Gordon, Georgia, for separation processing. On the same date, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 4 days of active military service. He had 208 days of lost time prior to his normal expiration of term of service (ETS) date and he had 791 days of lost time subsequent to his normal ETS date.

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.

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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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. All of the documents that are contained in the applicant's official military personnel file show social security numbers and/or service numbers that are consistent with those of the applicant. The locations from which the applicant departed in an AWOL status are consistent with those places at which he served.

5. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young, however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age with a parental consent. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation. The Board noted that the applicant was a good soldier for his first 15 months of service and that, by the time he began experiencing disciplinary problems, he was more than 19 years of age.

6. The Board sympathizes with the applicant in the loss of his father; however, the Board determined that he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without committing the offenses that led to the separation action under review.

7. There is no evidence of any discrepancies in the applicant's record and he has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

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

__wtm___ __cjp___ __ym____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076798
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030130
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730212
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.6000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.