MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            14 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12668
				   AR1998012376

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his discharge he only had 36 days left in the Army.  He contends his superiors told him to sign the paper and they would let him out and he would not go to jail.  He further states he knows he was “set up”; however, he was young and did not want to fight it.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation. 

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

At age 17, the applicant enlisted on 8 August 1969 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington, for duty as a supply clerk.

On 23 March 1970 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 22 March 1970 to 23 March 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. 

On 3 June 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 15 May 1970 to 27 May 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days of confinement at hard labor.

On 21 August 1970 NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 
12 August 1970 to 20 August 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.  

On 23 August 1971 the applicant was transferred to Vietnam.

On 13 January 1971, while in Vietnam, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 11 November 1970 to 12 December 1970.  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on 30 June 1971 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.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.

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.  In the absence of evidence of the contrary, it must be presumed that 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 or the evidence of record and his 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

__rvo ___  __slp____  __kan  __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12668	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/01/14	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/06/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	NC	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A94.07		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.