MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12647

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That a captain asked him if he would accept a discharge, which he did.  The captain told him the discharge could be changed within 6 months.  He did not receive the Army Discharge Review Board’s decision on his request for a change of discharge in 1971 or 1972.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 9 April 1969.  He completed basic combat training but not advanced individual training.

On 3 September 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 – 29 July 1969 and 1 – 25 August 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, suspended 
(later the suspension was vacated) and to forfeit $55 pay for 3 months.

On 16 December 1969, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for escaping from lawful confinement and for being AWOL from            3 September – 6 December 1969.

On 16 December 1969, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

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 not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 30 December 1969, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 30 December 1969, 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 months and 27 days of creditable active service and had 145 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 12 September 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) disapproved 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 wit applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The original, member’s copy of his DD Form 214 was on file with the ADRB action as well as the original letter from the ADRB to him advising him of their denial of his request (apparently returned as undeliverable).  Both documents will be returned to the applicant.

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

JH______  FNE_____  TBR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12647	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	691230	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 10.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.