MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 10 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003086756

         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
M. Gerard W. Schwartz		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Roger W. Abel		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Mr. Larry C. Bergquist		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and immature; he had family problems and the period of absent without leave (AWOL) was an isolated instance.

The applicant provided a letter that stated the above issues.

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

On 8 March 1974 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of two years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 57E (Laundry and Bath Specialist). The highest pay grade achieved was E-2.

On 14 June 1974 the applicant was assigned to the 21st Evacuation Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas.

On 28 August 1974, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $65.00, 10 days extra duty, and 14 days restriction.

On 16 December 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to duty. His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1, suspended for 60 days, forfeiture of $80.00, 14 days extra duty and restriction, suspended for 60 days.

The applicant was reported AWOL from 3 February 1975 thru 8 February 1975 and from 18 March 1975 thru 21 September 1975 when he surrendered to military control.

On 24 September 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 March 1975 thru 21 September 1975.

On 26 September 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.

On 10 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 4 November 1975, the applicant was discharged, in the pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 1 months and 17 days of creditable service and had 194 days of lost time.

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 Certificate.

An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment or period of obligated service with due consideration to the member's age, length of service and general aptitude. Where a member has served faithfully and performed to the best of his ability, an honorable discharge certificate should be furnished.

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.

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 considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to honorable condition.

2. The Board reviewed the applicant's service records, which included two nonjudicial punishments for failure to go to duty and two AWOL occurrences resulting in court martial charge for 188 days of AWOL. Even though the applicant claims that his offenses were minor and isolated, the Board concluded that the applicant committed several discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of soldiers in the Army.

3. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4. The applicant acknowledged his guilt of the court-martial charge by submitting a request for discharge. He was advised of the implications attached to the discharge. He acknowledged in his own hand that he understood the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

5. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 22 years of age at the time of his AWOL and met entrance qualification standards to include age. The Board further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

6. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge. The applicant's service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge.

7. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural error which would tend to jeopardizes his rights. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of this case.

8. 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.

9. 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

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086756
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030710
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751104
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	110.0200.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.