MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022334

	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. Leland A. Edwards 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should have read “unable to adjust to military life in the states.”

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

He enlisted on 12 July 1971 for a period of 2 year and, after training, was assigned to Camp Red Cloud, Korea.  After 1 year and 1 day of service, he re-enlisted on 14 July 1972 for a period of six years.

On 25 January 1973, the applicant reported to Homestead Air Force Base, Florida for duty.

He was administered non-judicial punishment twice under Article 15, UCMJ, on
1 March 1974 and 12 March 1974, for failure to report to his place of duty.

On 2 October 1974 the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial for being AWOL twice, for a total of 92 days.  He was sentenced to reduction to PV1, forfeiture of $75 a month for five months and confinement at hard labor for 95 days.  

The applicant was dropped from his unit’s roll on 5 June 1975 and remained absent until 11 October 75, for a total of 157 days AWOL.  He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not a part of the record.  The Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 14 October 1975 for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of a court-martial, and was issued and Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  The applicant had 3 years, 4 months, and 12 days creditable active service and 357 days lost time.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

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 trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

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 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, is presumed to be administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant’s request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  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.     

4.  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

__EMW__  ___EWL_  __MVT _  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022334	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.