MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           17 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12620
			         AR1998013096

	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. 	Deyon Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr.	James P. Steuve		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 an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he applied for an upgrade of his discharge in September 1991 and he was unable to attend the required hearing due to his new job.  In support of his appeal, he submits a copy of a letter dated 22 October 1990, indicating that he attempted to have his orders to Korea deleted.

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

On 3 February 1987, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a medical specialist.  He completed 2 years 11 months and 15 days of total of active service and on 18 January 1990, he reenlisted for an additional 2 years with a 6-month stabilization option.  Stabilization commenced on 2 February 1990 at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

On 4 October 1990, upon completion of his enlistment option, orders were prepared assigning him to the 1st AG Replacement Detachment, Korea.  Accordingly, he reported for duty in Korea on 16 October 1990.

The applicant went AWOL on 29 October 1990, and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 14 January 1991 and charges were preferred against him.

After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and submitted a request to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authoritiy.

Accordingly, on 18 March 1991, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 3 years, 10 months and 22 days of total active service and he had 77 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 23 September 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The fact that the applicant attempted to have his orders revoked and his attempts were denied, does not justify his going AWOL.

4.  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 VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

5.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

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

___tsk__  ___owt__  ____jps_  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director