MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            3 June 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021820

	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	
	Mr. David E. Weightman		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	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:  Reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge for the past 27 years, and that he did not desert nor did he intend to desert.  He submits a statement concerning circumstances surrounding his discharge, and records of evaluation and treatment from a community mental health center conducted in 1996 and 1997.  He also submits a copy of a diploma .from the Cuyahoga Community College conferring on him the degree of Associate of Applied Science for Automotive Technology, in June 1995.

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

The applicant was discharged on 13 September 1971 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 292 days of AWOL.

The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.

On 10 April 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.

This Board denied his previous request for an upgrade of his discharge on 
25 October 1989.

All of the applicant’s past and present requests, contentions, and submissions have been reviewed.

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.

Paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board; however, they do not convince the Board the discharge process was not in accordance with applicable law and regulations or that the applicant's service was not appropriately characterized.

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.  He chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he was given due process.

3.  His service is not meritorious and does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, and does not justify an honorable discharge.

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

rvo_____  kan ______ tbr _____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC88-09498A/1999021820	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 June 3	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.