MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           3 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018436

	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.	Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr.	Gary C. Miller		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 6 May 1974 and served as a medical specialist.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 May 1976 for possession of marijuana and for wrongfully selling marijuana on 23 and 25 February 1976. 

On 1 July 1976, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions 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 to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he knew what he did was wrong.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 14 July 1976
and was found qualified for separation.

On 29 July 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 3 August 1976.  He had a total of 
2 years, 2 months, and 28 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 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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable 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 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

RVO____  EW_____  GCM____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director