APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not separated by reason of any type of court-martial; he received a chapter discharge.

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

On 29 October 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was promoted to Sergeant E-5 on 1 December 1993 and was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal on 28 October 1994.

The applicant had no record of disciplinary action prior to 11 March 1996, when court-martial charges were preferred against him charging him with three specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 to                             3 February 1996, 17 to 22 February 1996 and 28 February to 3 March 1996; failing to obey a lawful general order to sign in; and wrongfully using cocaine sometime between 30 October and 28 November 1995.

On 12 March 1996, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 4 April 1996, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 10 April 1996, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 4 years, 5 months and 12 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 does not list his lost time.

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, 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) initially erroneously returned his application for consideration by that Board, stating records indicated he was separated by reason of a general court-martial.  However, this error was corrected, the ADRB did review his application, and on 23 December 1997 denied his request for an upgrade.

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 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.

2.  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.  Despite his prior good service, by requesting this discharge he was admitting guilt to at least one offense for which the imposition of a punitive discharge was authorized.

3.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director