APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was having personal problems and that the military had become an intricate part of the system and that he was put into the hospital in which he was to be discharged. He left Fort Gordon, Georgia, and Fort Campbell, Kentucky on his own recognizance to go to Fort Knox, Kentucky to be discharged. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was ordered to Active Duty on 5 June 1978 as an enlisted man in an Army Reserve status due to unsatisfactory performance in the Reserve. He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on 6 July 1977 for AWOL 4-5 June 1977. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 22 November 1978 to 9 January 1980. On 15 January 1980 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial. He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged UOTHC and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He also acknowledged he understood as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. On 15 January 1980 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be discharged UOTHC. He was discharged UOTHC on 27 March 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was credited with 19 months, and 28 days total active service and 90 days lost time due to AWOL. His petition to the Army Discharge Review Board on 21 April 1997 was returned without consideration. He failed to file within the 15 year statute of limitations. The basis for the petition was for medical reasons. 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. An opinion was requested and received in this case from Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor (COPY ATTACHED). He opined the applicant is not entitled to medical retirement or discharge and there is no medical reason to change discharge. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded: 1. 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. 2. Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention. However, his extensive absence for which court-martial charges have been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate. He acknowledged the loss of benefits when he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial trial. 3. An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and 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. He has not convinced the Board he deserves an honorable characterization of his service. 4. His UOTHC characterization of service is appropriate. His service was not fully honorable. 5. 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 the aforementioned requirement. 6. 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 Loren G. Harrell Director