MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10478

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson 		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was totally wrong for his actions but he would like the opportunity to get his life back in gear.

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

After having prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 1988.

There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary problems until the applicant departed absent without leave on 26 August 1991.  He was apprehended by civil authorities on 13 December 1992 for driving on a suspended license and failing to yield the right of way.  He was returned to military control on 14 December 1992.

The court-martial charge sheet is not available.

On 24 December 1992, 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 for violation of Article 86, AWOL.  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 22 January 1993, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 16 February 1993, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC,  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 a total of 3 years,    3 months and 25 days of creditable active service and had 476 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 27 August 1988, 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.  The characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate considering the length of his AWOL and the fact he was returned to military control only because he was apprehended by civil authorities.

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