PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           19 August 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020927

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard Miller .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolpi		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

3.  The applicant states, that he would like his discharge upgraded, so that he can redeem himself.  The applicant submitted letters in support of his application.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 April 1983, for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62J10 (General Construction Equipment Operator).  On 11 February 1987, he was honorably discharged, after serving, 
3 years 9 months and 22 days of honorable active service.  On 12 February 1987, the applicant immediately reenlisted for 3 years.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

5.  On 11 January 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being absent without leave from 18 August to 17 December 1987.

6.  On 12 January 1988, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so. 

7.  On 19 January 1988, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
24 February 1988, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 6 months and 29 days of creditable active service during this enlistment. 
 
8.  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.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.  

9.  The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his completed term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service.
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

2.  The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge, but in view of the honorable characterization of his prior term of service, his honorable discharge on 11 February 1987, should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.  

3.  The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 11 February 1987 have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.  

4.  In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 31/2 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 11 February 1987, as other than a complete and unconditional separation from the military service.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerning was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his discharge on 11 February 1987.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing is denied. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__cmf___  __cla___  __mhm___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Calvin M. Fowler
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020927	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990819	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880224	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 10. . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A94.07	
BOARD DECISION	 Partial GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.94	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.