MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            03 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11803

	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	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That although several West German citizens said he propositioned them for sex, he did not do such a thing.  That the whole incident was based on a misunderstanding of language; he was attempting to converse in German and it really backfired.  He also states that he was a good soldier, made specialist four in less than 2 years and received an Army Achievement Medal for working with the West German Army.

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

He enlisted on 4 October 1984 and, after training, was assigned to Germany.

On 9 September 1986 the applicant was formally charged with soliciting sodomy (three specifications); indecent assault; wrongfully making a false statement under oath; wrongful possession and wrongful use of marijuana in the hashish form; and assault (two specifications).  On 15 September 1986 he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he acknowledged he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that he did not desire further rehabilitation, nor had no desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 24 October 1986 the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 31 October 1986 at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He had 1 year, 10 months and 19 days of creditable service and 70 days time lost.

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 21 November 1995 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his 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.  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.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. 

3.  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.

4.  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

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.