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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was absent without leave (AWOL) less than     30 days and feels this does not justify a UOTHC discharge.  He had to take care of his daughter as his wife became mentally ill.  His commander said she would use him as an example.  

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

On 24 November 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 52D (Power Generation Equipment Repairer).

On 9 May 1983, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order.

On 19 July 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 10 June - 18 July 1983.

The applicant’s company and battalion commanders recommended trial by court-martial.

On 21 July 1983, 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 5 August 1983, the general court-martial convening authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 16 August 1983, 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 2 years, 7 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had 38 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 4 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 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  He acknowledged that he understood he might receive a discharge UOTHC and what the effects of such a discharge might be.

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