MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            31 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024362

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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 general.   

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that there is no error in his records; however, he requests an upgrade of his discharge because he has bettered himself and is ready to serve his country to the best of his ability.    

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

The applicant joined the USAR under the delayed entry program on 24 January 1995 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 March 1995 for a period of 3 years and 18 weeks.  He successfully completed his training and was awarded the military occupational specialty, 13B10, cannon crewmember.   

On 17 August 1995 he went AWOL and returned to military control on 10 March 1997.

On 11 March 1997 charges were preferred against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL period.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 13 March 1997, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 15 May 1997 the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
30 May 1997 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 7 months and 7 days of total active service and had 572 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 3 September 1997 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to general.  He contended the reason for his AWOL was because he missed his flight for port call to Korea.  After he 

missed his flight, he was informed to return to the nearest base which was Fort Stewart and sign in; however, when he returned to Fort Stewart he was told he could not sign in because they could not read his port call orders.  He also contends that he was told he would have to pay for his own ticket and at that point he was already considered AWOL.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal on 12 March 1999. 

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 Board supports the applicant’s contention that there is no error in his records.  His 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.

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

3.  The applicant’s post service conduct was also considered by the Board.  However, 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

__wtm___  __jhk ___  ___cwb__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024362	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/03/31	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1997/05/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.  821		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.