MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 28 OCTOBER 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091471

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson
Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member
Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		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.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and impressionable and allowed himself to be led by peer pressure and tried to fit in with the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He states that he is seeking an upgrade of his discharge on the "grounds of clemency for post military service.” He cites his "post service evidence of citizenship, education, and productivity in life" as the basis to upgrade his discharge. However, he submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 4 April 1972 at the age of 18 with 12 years of formal education. He successfully completed basic, advanced individual, and airborne training prior to being assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a supply clerk in September 1972. He received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings while undergoing training and was promoted to pay grade E-2 in July 1972.

In October 1972, shortly after his arrival at Fort Bragg, he was promoted to pay grade E-3.

In January 1973 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He returned to military control on 16 February 1973 but departed AWOL again on
20 February 1973. He returned to military control on 23 February 1973 and was subsequently convicted by a special court-martial for his periods of AWOL. His sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for
2 months.

Following the applicant's release from confinement he was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia.

In May 1973 the applicant was charged with stealing the stereo of another Soldier and placed in confinement. After charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge, which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

In June 1973 the applicant underwent a physical examination in preparation for his separation. The examining physician found the applicant medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1. A mental health evaluation, conducted on 27 June 1973, found the applicant fully alert and oriented, his memory good, and his thought process clear and normal. It determined the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

The applicant's request was approved and on 20 July 1973 the applicant was discharged "under conditions other than honorable" for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. He was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

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.

The applicant's records indicate that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge in 1974 and that this Board denied his petition to upgrade his discharge in 1975. However, his records do not contain a copy of the Board's 1975 action. In the absence of the original Board proceedings, this Board has accepted the current application and elected to do a "De Novo" review in order to provide the applicant with a clear understanding why his discharge has not been upgraded.

In 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board again denied his request to upgrade his discharge. The information, which is available to the Board, indicates that the applicant's previous requests to upgrade his discharge were based on his overcoming a drug problem.

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 has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. His successful completion of training and promotion to pay grade E-3, clearly indicates that the applicant was capable of honorable service, in spite of being only 18 plus years old at the time of his enlistment.

2. The fact that the applicant has now come to realize the consequence of his less than honorable discharge, and his contention that he has been a good citizen, have been noted. However, neither factor outweighs the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not, in this case, provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief as a matter of equity.

3. The applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and at the request of the applicant. 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 that requirement.

4. 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

__RJW__ __LDS __ __MJNT _ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091471
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20031028
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.