MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11836

	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. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. June Hajjar		Member	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		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.  He would like it placed on his records to show he applied for a hardship discharge while at Fort Knox, KY.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had contacted his commander, who told him to go to the nearest installation and obtain a transportation request, but he was arrested by Air Force authorities before he could do so.  That caused him to be late arriving at his permanent duty station and caused his good record to be marred.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 14 March 1972.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 - 28 August 1969.

On 2 September 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 27 March 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 27 July 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 17 - 19 May 1970 and 5 - 19 June 1970.

On 8 February 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 3 August 1970 - 30 January 1972.

The applicant completed a separation physical.  No reasonable grounds for belief that he was or ever had been mentally defective, deranged or abnormal were found.  He was found qualified for separation.

On 8 March 1972, 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.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf but it is not available.

On 14 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 14 March 1972, 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 1 year and 4 months and 26 days of creditable active service and had 262 days of lost time plus 309 days subsequent to his normal expiration term of service. 

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 17 June 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB, contending that severe financial hardship and his wife’s medical condition caused him to go AWOL to be with his wife and seek civilian employment.  Supporting documentation did support his wife’s complicated pregnancy problems and the fact that she had begun the paperwork for him to apply for a hardship discharge.  He also contended that he had severe emotional problems at the time (he was later diagnosed with schizophrenia).  On 12 October 1983, the ADRB denied his request, noting that the applicant’s misconduct caused the financial hardship.  

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.  Competent military medical authority examined the applicant prior to his separation and found no reasonable grounds for belief that he was or ever had been mentally defective, deranged or abnormal.  He has submitted no evidence to prove otherwise.

3.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever completed and submitted a request for a hardship discharge.

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

JEV_____  JH______  TDH_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director