MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            8 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021019

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and stupid when he was in the Army and he is not proud of the things that he had done.  He states that he started hanging around with the wrong crowd and started drinking and taking drugs because he wanted attention.  He further states that he did some dumb things while he was in the Army and he is now ashamed of himself.  He goes on to state that he served in the Army in good faith and he believes that he should be entitled to the peace of mind in knowing that his service has benefited himself and his country.  He concludes by stating that if he could turn back the clock he would do things differently; however, he is 42 years old now and he knows that he is too old to join the military.

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

On 28 March 1977, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a power generator and wheel vehicle mechanic.  

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 15 June 1977, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

On 12 July 1977, he was transferred to Germany and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 January 1978.

He had NJP imposed against him on 22 June 1979, for two incidents of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL from 15 June until 18 June 1979 and for wrongful appropriation of license plates.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 July until 16 July 1979, from 19 July until 26 July 1979 and from 10 August until 13 August 1979.  He was also charged with wrongful appropriation of an M-16 weapon and with failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 20 August 1979, he was notified that charges were pending against him and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 10 September 1979.  According, on 24 September 1979, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions 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 2 years 5 months and 26 days of total active service

On 16 April 1981, 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 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 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's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 21 years old at the time of his enlistment in the Army and he was 23 years old at the time that charges were preferred against him.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.

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

___rwa__  ___ro ___  ___jh ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021019	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1979/09/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	A71.00/144.7100	
2.  713	A71.10/144.7110	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.