MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018048

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher 		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was unjust and that he served his country for approximately 7 years.

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

The applicant initially enlisted on 3 October 1972 as an ammunition specialist and continued to serve until he was released from active duty on 29 September 1975.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

After a break in service, he reenlisted on 27 October 1976 as an air defense weapon crewman.  He was promoted to sergeant (E-5) on 17 April 1978.

On 20 September 1979, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 4 September 1979.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, 30 days extra duty, and a forfeiture of pay.

On 18 December 1979, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongful appropriation of government property on 12 November 1979.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, 10 days extra duty, and reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended).

On 10 June 1980, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 2 June 1980.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 10 June 1980 and was found qualified for separation.

Evidence of record shows the applicant committed an offense on 26 June 1980 and court-martial charges were preferred on 3 July 1980.  However, the charge sheet is not contained in the applicant’s records.  The Division Artillery Commander, a colonel, recommended trial by special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 27 June 1980 which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceeding.  Consequently, he was psychologically cleared for action deemed appropriate by his commander.

On 8 July 1980, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life 
and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected
not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 21 July 1980, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 25 July 1980.  He had a total of
6 years, 8 months, and 26 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  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 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 VA benefits.

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 trail by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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

JMA____  KYF_____  EWL____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018048	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990318	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800725	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.