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

APPLICANT STATES:  That the reason he requested a Chapter 10 is not that he was guilty of the charge but that his integrity and self-respect had been challenged.  With his service record, a less than honorable discharge is not appropriate.

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

On 25 November 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

The applicant has no record of disciplinary action of any kind prior to the incident that resulted in his discharge.

The applicant was involuntarily extended when Department of the Army placed a “Stop Loss” on separations during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

The applicant served in Southwest Asia from 21 December 1990 - 22 January 1991.

The court-martial charge sheet is not available, although apparently he was charged with malingering for shooting himself in the foot.

On 10 June 1991, 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.  There is no statement in his own behalf in the Chapter 10 packet; however, the applicant includes with this application a “Rebuttal Letter”.

His company, battalion and brigade commanders recommended the Chapter    10 request be disapproved but they did not state what they recommended instead.

On 12 June 1991, the general court-martial authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 3 July 1991, 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 3 years, 7 months and 9 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  His awards and decorations included the Army Achievement Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Parachutist Badge.

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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  In his “Rebuttal Letter” the applicant states he was not guilty of the charge, but by requesting a Chapter 10 discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge or of lesser included offenses.

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