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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told that 7 years after his discharge it would be upgraded to honorable.

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

On 13 September 1976, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, for   3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11E (Armor Crewman).

Between March and July 1977, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on four separate occasions for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty.

The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 September 1977 to 26 February 1978.

On 2 March 1978, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 2 March 1978, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 6 March 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with one specification of AWOL for the above period.

On 7 March 1978, 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 17 March 1978, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 24 March 1978, 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 1 year, 1 month and 8 days of creditable active service and had 175 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.

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.  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