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

APPLICANT STATES:  He recently found out that a summary court-martial should not warrant a discharge UOTHC.

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

He had prior Army National Guard service.  On 15 October 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

On 9 May 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the periods 17 to       20 February 1989, 20 February - 3 March 1989 and 3 March - 30 April 1989.

On 9 May 1989, 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 30 May 1989, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

The applicant elected not to complete a separation physical.

The applicant was placed on excess leave from 10 May to 14 August 1989.

On 15 August 1989, the applicant was discharged in the 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 1 year, 7 months and 18 days of creditable active service and had 72 days of 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.

On 20 January 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

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 did not receive a summary court-martial; he received an administrative discharge.  He had been charged with an offense that rendered him triable by court-martial and, had he been tried by court-martial, he could have received a punitive (bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge.  He voluntarily requested separation, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.  That separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge received was appropriate considering the length of his AWOL.

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