MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077317

         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. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Ms. Linda M. Barker		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 a general discharge under honorable conditions or to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: Both of his parents were alcoholics and he was experiencing difficulty at home. Therefore, at age 19, he voluntarily joined the military to serve his country and for stability. Shortly after he enlisted in the military, his mother's drinking significantly increased and she was hospitalized for cirrhosis of the liver. Although his mother did recover, he was under immense pressure to return home. Regrettably, he put his personal problems above his military obligations and he left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status on more than one occasion. He was convicted for being AWOL and confined.
After he was released from confinement, noncommissioned officers (NCO's) repeatedly ostracized him, constantly yelled at him and rode him. He probably deserved it, but it became overwhelming. Eleven days after he was released from confinement, he left AWOL again and he remained AWOL for about a year. Upon his return, an NCO advised him that he was going to be separated with a UD and that he would be processed quickly. It was obvious that he did not have what it took to keep his commitment with the Army and he would have signed anything to keep from going back into confinement. He was never advised that court-martial charges had been preferred against him for his last period of AWOL. He was never given a copy of the charges and he has no recollection of signing a request for discharge for the good of the service. He has matured and he realizes that he made some bad decisions early in his life. Since leaving the military, he has educated himself; he has a successful career with a major corporation; and he and his wife, now deceased, reared two wonderful sons. He submits in support of his request seven-character reference letters from family members, co-workers and friends. The character references indicate the applicant is a kind, honest, reliable person; he demonstrates great moral, ethical and professional qualities; he displays a generous nature and he always helps family members and others in need; he is dedicated and passionate and a pleasure to work with; he displays inner strength and fortitude; he has been an exemplary role model and a devoted husband and father. He also submits in support of his request a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); an advancement order for pay grade
E-2; court-martial orders and various other orders; his Enlistment Qualification Record; an extract copy of a morning report; enlistment records; a bachelor of science degree; and a criminology database search which indicates he has no recorded criminal record.

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 10 June 1968 and training in aircraft maintenance. On 18 June 1968, he was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for basic combat training. He left his unit in an AWOL status from 19 August 1968-9 December 1968.
On 23 December 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of the above AWOL offense. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $75.00 pay per month for 6 months.

The applicant was confined at Fort Dix from 14 December 1968 until he was transferred to the Indiantown Gap Military Reservation (IGMR), Annville, Pennsylvania, for confinement on 26 January 1969. He remained in confinement until 23 May 1969. On 27 May 1969, he left IGMR in a casual leave status
en route to Fort Dix. He failed to report to Fort Dix and was placed in an AWOL status on 4 June 1969. He remained AWOL until he returned to military control at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Dix, on 3 June 1970.

On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 4 June 1969-3 June 1970. On 6 June 1970, the applicant acknowledged by authenticating a written statement with his signature that he had consulted with legal counsel and 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 also acknowledged that he had been advised that he could receive a UD and that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 June 1970, the applicant's commander recommended approval with a UD. On 18 June 1970, the applicant's brigade commander recommended approval with a UD. On 22 June 1970, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.

On 30 June 1970, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 3 months and
22 days of active military service and he had 639 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

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. The Board took into consideration that the applicant may have experienced personal problems and 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.

5. The Board also took into consideration the applicant’s character references to include the fact that he has matured and become a prolific citizen since being separated from active duty. The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments. However, post service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

6. 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

___rjw__ __bje___ __lmb___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077317
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030408
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700630
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.7100
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.