MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08290

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has not been in any trouble since his discharge and that he has a clean record.

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

The applicant enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 19 November 1979 for a period of 3 years.  On 23 July 1982, while stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, he reenlisted in the pay grade of E-4 for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Ord, California.

On 7 February 1983, while stationed at Fort Ord, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty and restriction for 7 days.

On 13 April 1984 NJP was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana that was detected through a urine sample submitted by the applicant.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 (suspended for 6 months) and a forfeiture of pay.

On 20 September 1984 the applicant went AWOL and remained absent in a deserter status until he was returned to military control on 8 May 1985.  

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 10 September 1985, for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 5 years, 2 months, and 3 days of total active service and had 231 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant records fail to show that he has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, the actions by this Board will not preclude him from doing so at a later date. 

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 to 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, the charges against him coupled with his otherwise undistinguished record of service do not warrant further relief in his case. 

4.  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.

5.  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

__emw__  __lem ___  __cs____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-08290	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/09/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	awol	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.A71.00		
2.A92.21		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.