MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 14 January 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002079271


         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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson
Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member
Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the previous Board decision indicated that he only served 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of active duty with 343 days of being absent without leave (AWOL). He claims that he completed 2 years and 5 months of active duty and had approximately 1 year of AWOL which is a total of 3 years and 5 months.

He states that he served 8 months of active duty during the period January 1968 to September 1968.

He also states that he served 1 year and 8 months in Germany from September 1968 to May 1970.

The applicant claims that he was restricted to the barracks in Fort Lewis, Washington, for 1 month during the period May 1971 to July 1971. He states that he was discharged in July 1971 after being AWOL from June 1970 to May 1971.

He claims that the 7,300 days that he worked for the government does not give him enough merit to be buried on government land or to be given military honors when he dies.

The applicant submitted a copy of the previous decision by the Board in Docket Number AR20010655254 and a letter from a Member of Congress.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) of Docket Number AR2001065254 on 16 May 2002.

The applicant’s contentions are new arguments and new submissions which will be considered by the ABCMR.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1968 for a period of three years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Germany on 11 August 1968. He was honorably discharged on 18 September 1968. The applicant completed 8 months and 2 days of active duty service during this period.

While in Germany, the applicant reenlisted on 19 September 1968 for a period of 3 years.

Orders published by the 68th Transportation Company, 28th Transportation Battalion on 17 September 1969, shows that the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for misconduct. The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) is not present in his records; therefore, the specific nature of the misconduct is unknown. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $15.00 pay per month for 1 month.

The applicant continued to serve in Germany until 5 May 1970 when he was reassigned to the United States Army Pacific (USARPAC). The applicant failed to report to his assignment and was placed in an AWOL status on 14 June 1970. He remained AWOL until he returned to military control at Fort Lewis, Washington, on 26 May 1971 (a total of 343 days).

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) which shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with issuance of an undesirable discharge. He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 6 days of active service during this period with 343 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant had completed 2 years, 6 months and 8 days of total active military service.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

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 Board notes that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2. The Board carefully reviewed the statements submitted by the applicant in support of his claim.

3. The Board noted the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for misconduct during his assignment in Germany.

4. The Board also noted that he was AWOL for 343 days after returning from Germany.

5. The applicant has not presented any evidence that the discharge process was flawed, in error or unjust. Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge to honorable.

6. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for this Board to reverse the decision of the ABCMR in Document Number AR2001065254 on 16 May 2002.

7. 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

MKP____ JLP_____ MMB_____ DENY APPLICATION



         Carl W. S. Chun

Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079271
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030114
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710707
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the Service
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.