MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12692
   AR1998012700

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was to be upgraded as a result of a hearing held in 1980 and that any excessive leave was adjudicated to be due to hardship.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 12 February 1979 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, for duty as a bridge specialist.

On 5 September 1979 he went AWOL and remained absent until he returned to military control on 11 October 1979.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL on 17 October 1979.  

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he went AWOL because his family had financial problems and he could not cope with military life.  

The applicant’s intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request for discharge and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 8 November 1979 and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
7 December 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had served 8 months and 19 days of total active service and had 37 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.   
  
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 a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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’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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record and his brief undistinguished record of service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.

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

__jhl____  ___vbc __  ___aao__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12692/AR1998012700	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979/12/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A94.07		
2.  110.000		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.