MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            24 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019431

	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. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because:  (1) he was not fully aware of his rights; (2) he was wrongfully represented by JAG; (3) his lawyer was ineffective counsel; (4) hearsay evidence was illegally considered; (5) his record of promotion shows he was a good serviceman and he was so close to finishing his tour that it was unfair to give him a bad discharge; (6) his command abused its authority when it decided to discharge him and give him a bad discharge; (7) he was not properly counseled about his discharge;
(8) he was discharged before his appeal was completed; and (9) there was not enough incidents to warrant a bad discharge.  He also contends that he was unaware of the discharge process and the circumstances and that his sergeant did not like him and wanted to ruin his career.

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

He enlisted in the Army Reserve under the delayed entry program and entered active duty on 13 February 1979 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas, for duty as a cannon crewman.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 October 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 7 days of total active service.

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 contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, there is no evidence available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.        
2.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

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

___jev___  ___rwa__  __alr____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019431	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR625-200 CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.000	
2.  404	A01.43	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.