MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	BOARD DATE:           7 October 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10157

	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	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Vick		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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, upgrade of his Under Other Than
Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge to a General Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was based on
one incident in 60 months of service; that he was not brought before a 
court-marital board; that he had no legal representation; and that he was also
interrogated without counsel. 

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

He was born on 27 February 1959.  He completed 12 years of formal education.
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 1977, for a period of 4 years for
training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E10 (Armor Crewman).  He
completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was assigned 
for duty in Butzbach, Germany. 

While at Butzbach, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating a
lawful general regulation on 23 February 1980 by operating a personally owned
vehicle (POV) without a valid US Army (USAREUR) operator’s permit and
wrongfully and unlawfully leaving the scene of an accident.  His punishment
included forfeiture of $ 372.00 pay per month for 2 months.  

On 1 May 1981, he reenlisted for 3 years and changed his MOS to 19F20 (Tank Driver).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E5.  

He then received an additional NJP on 31 August 1981, for operating a POV without a
valid USAREUR operator’s permit on 1 July 1981, while drunk.  His punishment included: reduction to the pay grade of specialist four (SP4), forfeiture of $242.00
pay, suspended for a period of 90 days.

The applicant received his final NJP on 8 December 1981, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 - 27 November 1981.  His punishment included: reduction to the rank of private first class, restriction and extra duty for a period of 45 days.

The applicant’s discharge proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 10,
AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in-lieu of court-martial, are not in the file.

On 16 December 1981, he was discharged, after completing 6 years, 5 months,
and 7 days of total active service with a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant had 11 days lost time for being AWOL.
The applicant requested a review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 19 August 1998, the ADRB denied his request for an upgrade.  

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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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.  That on 16 December 1981, the applicant signed a DD Form 214 (Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), indicating the following facts:
character of service was an UOTHC discharge; reason for the discharge was for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial; and the separation authority was
Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence of error or
injustice, this Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.

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

 LS      JV     SAC      DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director