MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12677

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident over a 30-month period of service and that his overall record of service should have been considered.

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

The applicant enlisted on 10 December 1979 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training a an equipment repair parts specialist and was transferred to Germany where he served until 7 January 1982.

Upon completion of his service in Germany he was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where he began a series of AWOL’s.  He went AWOL from 18 August to 23 August 1982, from 24 August to 7 September, and from 15 September to 29 September 1982.  

On 6 October 1982 charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of failure to go to his place of duty, for stealing $351.00, and for being AWOL from 15 September to 29 September 1982.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  His request was initially disapproved; however, he resubmitted his request and it was approved by the appropriate authority on 9 December 1982 with instructions to discharge the applicant under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 14 December 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 18 days of total active service and had approximately 77 days of lost time.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.  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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record fail to support his contentions.  Likewise, the offenses for which he was charged are too serious and his record of service is too undistinguished to warrant relief. 

4.  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.

5.  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

___emw _  __lem __  ___cs ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12677	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/12/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, ch10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00/awol, larceny	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  A71.00.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.