MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            12 May 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022855

	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. Judy Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 1978, for 4 years, with 4 months of prior service.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

Between February and September 1979, the applicant accepted three nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three occasions of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 to 29 January, from 
30 April to 2 May and from 26 June to 15 August 1979.  His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1. 

On 22 February 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 14 November 1979 to 21 January 1980.

On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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.  The applicant stated in effect, that he wanted to become a career soldier and to learn a skill.  He further stated, that he had a lot on his mind. 

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 10 March 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 16 April 1980, 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 1 year, 2 months and 15 days of creditable active service. 
 
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 UOTHC 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, 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__GDP___  __AAO___  __JEA___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022855	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990512	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800416	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.