APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told at the time of his discharge that it would automatically be done in three months.  He found out he did not have veteran’s status and was told to complete this form to correct it.

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

On 24 July 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training but did not complete an advanced individual training.

On 26 May 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 16 April  to 17 May 1992.

On 26 May 1992, 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 7 July 1992, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 27 July 1992, 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 11 months and 3 days of creditable active service and had 31 days of lost time.  (His DD Form 214 does not reflect his lost time and shows his net active service as 1 year and 4 days.)

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 11 June 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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  In his request for separation, he indicated he understood that there is no automatic upgrading nor review by any Government agency of a less than honorable discharge.

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