MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      . 

	BOARD DATE:           August 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024264

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his service was honorable, that he was young and immature when he committed his misconduct; and that he has no adverse actions under the uniform code of military justice.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the Board make a favorable decision on behalf of the applicant.

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

After a 4 month break in service, on 1 June 1971 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army.

The applicant has a 35-day period of AWOL (12 June –17 July 1972).

The specific facts concerning the applicant’s separation from the Army are not in the record, however; his DD Form 214(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 4 August 1972 the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year and 29 days of active military service and accruing 35 days of lost 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 trial by court-martial.  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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions, in effect, that his youth and maturity level was a factor in his misconduct and that his service is honorable because he had no punishment under the uniform code of military justice, neither did he provide any independent corroborating evidence in support of his contentions.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  Additionally, the applicant would have been 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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting 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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024264	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	199908DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990804	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.9301		
2.9201		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.