MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 6 March 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002078037

         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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member
Mr. Frank C. Jones II		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That he really enjoyed being in the Army and that he does not know where he went wrong. He states that he was a squad leader and that he got a letter of commendation while he was in basic training. He goes on to state that while he was in the Army, he and his squad started getting pushed around and harassed which caused him to become out of control. He states that he was told that he could get out of the Army and that he did not understand the consequences of his actions. He concludes by stating that now that he is older and has a family he would like to set the record straight.

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

On 9 November 1965, he enlisted in the Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG) for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as an infantryman. His Report of Separation (National Guard Bureau Form 22) shows that after he completed only 8 months and 23 days in the TNARNG, he was issued a general discharge on 1 August 1966, as a result of continuous and willful absences. He was reverted to the United States Army Reserve Control Group to complete his remaining service obligation.

On 8 April 1968, he was involuntarily ordered to active duty for a period of 23 months and 23 days.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 24 July 1968, for disobeying a lawful order, for being absent without proper authority (AWOL) for over 4 hours on 29 June 1968 and for being AWOL from 14 July to 15 July 1968. His punishment consisted of $20.00 per month for 2 months.

The applicant went AWOL again on 1 August 1968 and he remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 3 April 1969.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 April until 28 April 1969, 10 May until 12 May 1969, 23 May until 4 June 1969, 5 June until 10 June 1969, 19 June until 7 July, 24 October until 27 October 1969 and from 3 December 1969 until 1 March 1974.

On 11 March 1974, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a 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. Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in his own behalf stating that the he was inducted into the Army in order to be made an example of by the Army National Guard. He stated that after he went AWOL for the first time, his senior noncommissioned officer “road his back” by making the platoon do push-ups and stating that it was entirely his fault. He further stated that he was told that the harassment that he was receiving came from higher up and that when he told his senior NCO that he would go AWOL again, his senior NCO’s reply was “okay”. He concluded that his family and the Army would be better off if he received a chapter 10 discharge because if he were to be retained in the Army he did not believe that he would be able to make it. In the statement, he acknowledged that he understood the type of discharge that he would receive and the effect that it would have on his life in the future.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge. Accordingly on 19 April 1974, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had approximately 1847 days of lost time due to AWOL and he was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 4 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

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 would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he submitted a statement in his own behalf along with his request for discharge acknowledging that he understood the type of discharge that he would receive and the effect that it would have on his life in the future. He repeatedly went AWOL and he stated that it was best for him to be furnished a chapter 10 discharge. Although he may now believe that he made the wrong decision, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4. In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge was too severe.

5. 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.

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

__fcj____ ___lds___ ___wtm__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078037
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/06
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740419
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON	689
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 689	144.7000
2. 708	144.7100
3.
4.
5.
6.