MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:            10 March 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018970

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 be upgraded to general.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to general.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 4 February 1972 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to the Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida, for duty as a Hawk missile crewman.

On 18 January 1973 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 5 January 1973 until 18 January 1973.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 7 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 17 April 1973 he went AWOL and remained absent until he returned to military control on 1 May 1973.  He again went AWOL on 4 May 1973 and remained absent until he was apprehended on 6 October 1976. 

Charges were preferred against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL and desertion periods on 22 October 1976.  Trial by general court-martial was recommended.

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, chapter 10.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

The applicant’s intermediate commander recommended approval of his request for discharge and recommended that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge for the good of the service on 12 November 1976 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
19 November 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had served 1 year, 2 months and 4 days of total active service and had 1265 days of lost time due to AWOL and desertion.
 
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 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 charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service in order to avoid a trial by court-martial and the possibility of receiving a felony conviction.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses (AWOL and desertion) for which he was charged.

3.  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.

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

__klw ___  ___mw__  ___fkm __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018970	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761119	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CHAPTE 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	 	
2.  821	 	
3.  813	 	
4.		
5.		
6.