MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            3 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11327

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was AWOL on several occasions, given extra duty, and was called all kinds of names in private.

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

He enlisted on 30 August 1972 for a period of 3 years

On 14 May 1973, nonjudical punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and 14 days extra duty. 

On 20 February 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to be
at his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended), and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 18 July 1974, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to be at his 
appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3.  

On 22 April 1975, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from
1 April 1975 to 12 April 1975.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and 30 days correctional custody.
       
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 4 November 1975 for being AWOL from 29 April 1975 to 2 November 1975.  

After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated that he understood that if his
request was accepted, he could receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 21 November 1975 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
27 January 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 16 days of total active service and had 199 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge on 19 December 1978.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was 
proper and equitable, and denied his request on 20 October 1980.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  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.	Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.
However, his extensive absence (199 days) for which court-martial charges had
been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate.

3.  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.

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

___rwa__  ___elw __  ___js ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

	AC98-11327	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/01/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. A70.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.