MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           17 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10695
			         AR1999020499

	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.	Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr.	James P. Steuve		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that he be reinstated on active duty with full back pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded so that he can receive his benefits.

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

On 29 December 1972, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a wheel vehicle mechanic.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 22 January 1974, for being absent from his unit.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 28 January 1974, NJP was imposed against him for possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

He had NJP imposed against him on 4 April 1974, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant and he was referred to a special court-martial on 21 May 1974.  He was charged with being AWOL from 23 April until 18 May 1974.  He was also charged with five specifications of violating a lawful general order by purchasing goods in excess of prescribed limits.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  However, the records do show that he submitted a request to be discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 5 June 1974, the request to be discharged was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly, on 13 June 1974, he was discharged 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 completed 1 year, 3 months and 22 days of total active service.  He had 51 days of lost time due to AWOL and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 26 March 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant had NJP imposed against him on three separation occasions and he was pending trial by a SPCM for his numerous acts of indiscipline.  Although the facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge are not on file, he was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the fact that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was also afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.

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

__tsk___  ___owt__  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director