MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC9808887

	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	
	M		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he is wanting to obtain government benefits for the purpose of obtaining a house for his family.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 February 1982.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL.  On numerous occasions the applicant repeatedly went AWOL for half of his tour of service.

On 3 April 1987 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial.  He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  

On 15 April 1987 the appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
13 May 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was credited with 
9 months, and 21 days total active service and 867 days lost time due to AWOL and civilian detainment. 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and was denied his upgrade request on 16 July 1997 based on a records review.  He was advised he may reapply for a personal appearance hearing.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.  A dishonorable characterization would only be appropriate for dishonorable service.

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.  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.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention.  However, absence and other misconduct for which court-martial charges have been preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate.  He acknowledged the loss of benefits when he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial trial.

3.  An Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  He has not convinced the Board he deserves an honorable characterization of his service.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director