MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:                                                     

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-07705

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr.	George D. Paxson		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms.	Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that based on his accomplishments in basic combat training (BCT) and advance individual training (AIT) he never reached his potential as a soldier.

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

On 31 October 1989 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and 22 weeks.  He enlisted for the US Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option.  He successfully completed one station unit training at Fort McClellan , Alabama.  Upon completion of advance individual training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist), and assigned to Fort Ord, California for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents that the highest grade he held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and that he earned the Army Service Ribbon.

On 2 December 1990 the applicant was charged with being disrespectful toward a commissioned officer; for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer; for twice disobeying a lawful order; and for being derelict in his duties.  The applicant consulted legal counsel, requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 December 1990 the unit commander recommended that the applicant’s request be disapproved.  The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders recommended approval with a UOHC.

On 4 December 1990 the separation authority approved separation with a UOHC Accordingly, on 20 December 1990 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days of active military service.

On 24 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.

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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that based on his accomplishments during BCT and AIT he never reached his potential as a soldier, neither did he provide any corroborating evidence in support of his contention.

2.  The evidence of record is clear, and shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge and after consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In so doing, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

4.  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.

5.  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

__fne____  ___rvo__  __gdp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director