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

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the discharge was too harsh for the offense of absent without leave (AWOL) during peacetime.  He turned himself in.  He was a young 22 year old who became confused and overwhelmed by the situation confronting him at the time.

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

He was born on 25 August 1965.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1984 and was honorably separated on 2 October 1987.  He then enlisted in the Army National Guard until his reenlistment in the Regular Army on 14 January 1988 for 4 years.

The applicant had no record of any other disciplinary actions during his current term of enlistment.

On 5 April 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with one specification of AWOL for the period 13 February - 1 April 1989.

On 11 April 1989, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 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 20 April 1989, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 3 May 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 a total of 4 years, 2 months and 2 days of creditable active service and had 47 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 7 February 1997, 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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The applicant was not a naïve first-termer.  His request for a Chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director