MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 29 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002083239

         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:

Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson
Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member
Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		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: That he served honorably in Vietnam; that others who ran away and did not serve their country received pardons; and that he deserves as much.

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

Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the Army of the United States (AUS) from 10 March 1967-12 December 1968. He served in Vietnam from 2 August 1967-31 July 1968. He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13D (Field Artillery Rocket Crewman). He was issued a DD Form 214 at the time of separation.

On 13 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years, for assignment to Korea, a reenlistment bonus (amount unknown), his previous MOS and in pay grade E-4. He was assigned in Korea on 2 February 1969. On an unknown date, MOS 13D was re-designated 15F (Honest John Rocket Crewmember).

On 18 March 1969, the applicant was approved to receive a lump sum payment of his variable reenlistment bonus due to a personal financial hardship. On 11 May 1970, he was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5, this was the highest pay grade that he achieved.

In July 1970, the applicant returned to the United States and he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.

On 8 April 1971, the applicant was demoted from pay grade E-5 to pay grade
E-4, due to reasons that are no longer contained in the available record.

The applicant was in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from 5 June-
3 July 1972, when he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On 12 July 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for this period of AWOL. His punishment included forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 2 months (1 month suspended), 30 days of restriction and reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3.

---

On 18 July 1972, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. On 6 February 1973, he was assigned to the overseas replacement station, Fort Dix, New Jersey. On the same date, he left in an AWOL status and he remained AWOL until he returned to military control at Fort Sill on 2 September 1976.

On 9 September 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 6 February 1973-2 September 1976. On an unknown date, the applicant 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 was advised that he could receive a UD. He acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD. He contended in a statement submitted in his own behalf that that wanted to remain in the Army, that he had served in Vietnam, that he had received a letter of commendation, and that he had been soldier of the month twice.

On 20 September 1976, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.

On 22 September 1976, the separation authority approved separation with a UD and directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1.

The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 30 September 1976, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. He had completed 4 years, 1 month and 24 days of active military service and he had 1,333 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

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 reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3. The Board noted the applicant served in Vietnam prior to the period of service under review and he received an honorable discharge for that period of service.

4. During the period of enlistment under review, the applicant had two extended periods of AWOL and he has provided no mitigating circumstances for those periods of AWOL. This type of conduct is inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct. Therefore, the applicant's overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge for this period of service.

5. 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___ __wtm___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083239
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030729
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760930
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.6000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.