MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021011

	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	
	Mrs. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he served 30 months (sic) of his enlistment obligation and since he served most of his time honorably, he believes that his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He further states that the Vietnam War caused him to have mental problems.   

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

On 10 October 1967, the applicant at the age of 16 erroneously enlisted in the Regular Army, for 3 years.  The applicant service was terminated by a minority discharge with the character of service as honorable.  On 21 August 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, opting to trained in soils analysis.  However, after a month of training he was transferred to Fort Knox to be trained as a cook.  There is no official documents in the applicant’s file to explain the transfer, however, his record indicated that he missed formation on more than one occasion and that he could not get along with his superior noncommissioned officer.  The applicant successfully completed advanced individual training as a cook and was promoted to pay grade E-3.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

Between September 1970 and July 1971, and while assigned to a unit in Vietnam, the applicant accepted five nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three occasions of disobeying a lawful order, for dereliction in the performance of his duties, for the wrongful appropriation of a ¾ ton vehicle property of the United States Government and for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  

On 7 September 1971, the applicant was reported for being absent without leave (AWOL).  He was returned to military control on 7 December 1971.  On 
14 December 1971, he went AWOL again and remained AWOL until 1 March 1972. 

On 9 March 1972, a mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 10 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 September to 7 December 1971 and from 14 December 1971 to 1 March 1972.

On 17 March 1972, 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.  He stated, in effect, that he went AWOL because he did not like the Army; that he did not like taking orders and the Army restricted his freedom.  He further stated, that he wanted out of the Army because while he was AWOL, he kicked his Heroin habit and that he was afraid that if he went back into the Army environment, he would have become addicted to drugs again. 

On 22 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 30 March 1972, 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 2 years, 1 month and 20 days of creditable active service during this enlistment. 
 
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.  

On 4 March 1980, the Army Discharge Review upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  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.

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 trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3. The applicant served 2 years, 1 month and 20 days of active service during his 3-year enlistment.  There is no evidence nor has the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegation.  At the time of his discharge a mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention. 

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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___  __jma___  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021011	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720330	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.77	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.