MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023106

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his ability to serve was hampered by family problems. 

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

The applicant entered active duty on 6 January 1977 as a personnel administrative specialist.

On 28 April 1977, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 20 April 1977 to 25 April 1977.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 15 July 1977 for being AWOL from 2 May 1977 to 11 July 1977.

On 9 August 1977, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 12 August 1977 and was found qualified for separation.

On 18 August 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 26 August 1977.  

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

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his ability to serve was hampered by family problems; however, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  The Board also noted the applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf during the discharge process, but he declined to do so.

2.  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 VA benefits.

3.  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.  

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

5.  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.

6.  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

INW_____  EB_____  TAP_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023106	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770826	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.