MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 10 June 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085051

         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
Mr. Luis Almodova		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (UD) be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that when he was discharged, he was told to sign for it and that he was going home. He was not told he was getting a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He believed that he was being discharged because of an injury to his right hand and wrist. He had surgery on his hand three times at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

He adds that it is now apparent that he was given a discharge under other than honorable conditions because he was AWOL (absent without leave) in either February or March of 1973 from the hospital at Fort Sill. He states that he was returning from leave in California when his car broke down. He did not have any money so he had to hitch hike back to Orange, California, to his girlfriend's house. He called his unit at Fort Sill and shortly thereafter, he was taken into custody by the local police department. He was then taken into custody by personnel from Fort Ord and was discharged there. When he was discharged, he believed it was for a medical reason and not for AWOL.

The applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, in support of an upgrade of his discharge.

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

The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 15 May 1972. He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

On 7 August 1972, while he was in AIT, the applicant received an Article 15 under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for incapacitating himself for the proper performance of his duties as the result of previous indulgence of intoxicating liquor, and for absenting himself from his place of duty from 0500 hours until 1345 hours on 3 August 1972. As his punishment, he was restricted to the battery area for 7 days, was required to perform extra duties for 7 days, and forfeited 7 days pay ($64.00).

On completion of all required training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty 13A, Field Artillery Basic, on 2 September 1972.

The evidence of record shows that he was held over in his AIT unit and on 8 December 19972, he was assigned to the Medical Holding Detachment,

---

Reynolds Army Hospital, Fort Sill, as a patient. On 12 January 1973, he was assigned to B Battery, 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery, for duty as a Cannoneer.

On 24 January 1973, the applicant departed AWOL from his unit. He surrendered himself to his unit on 31 January 1973. The applicant again departed AWOL on 1 February 1973 and surrendered himself to his unit on 5 February 1973. The applicant departed AWOL for the third time on 6 February 1973. The unit dropped him from the rolls of the organization in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 630-10, paragraph 3-4c.

On 16 February 1973, the applicant returned to military control at Fort MacArthur, California. He was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Ord, California.

The applicant’s record does not contain his request for discharge for the good of the service and all documents related to his discharge from the Army. The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant. This document identifies the reason and authority, character of service, and type of discharge certificate that was issued.

The applicant was discharged on 22 March 1973 in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and he was provided an undesirable discharge certificate. On the date of his discharge, he had 9 months and 28 days active Federal service with 10 days lost due to AWOL.

The record shows that the highest rank and pay grade that the applicant attained in his brief period of service was Private, E-2. The record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 630-10 provides guidance for determining absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion status. It defines procedures for administration of persons in such status. It gives instructions for starting apprehension efforts and describes administrative actions for members returning to military control.

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 submit, at any time after the charges have been preferred, 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.

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.

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. Notwithstanding the absence of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2. The Board noted that it was the applicant who requested discharge for the good of the service to avoid the possibility of a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his record. While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, the applicant should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering his less than distinguished record of service.

3. The Board is convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. The Board noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and the applicant was aware of that before requesting discharge.

4. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service. There is no record or documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service that would warrant special recognition.

5. Finally, the Board has determined that the quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge.

6. 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.

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

__sac___ __slp___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085051
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030610
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730322
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.	144.7000
3.
4.
5.
6.