MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           4 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024595

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the hashish found in his locker was not his.  He shared the locker with another person.  The Army attorney at the time informed him that if he did not accept the discharge he would face court-martial and incarceration because he could not prove the hashish was not his.  It has been over 24 years since his discharge.  His conduct since his discharge has been exemplary.  No supporting evidence is provided.  

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

He was born on 19 September 1954.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1973.  

The evidence of record shows the applicant had no prior record of disciplinary actions.

On 20 December 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with unlawfully possessing on 14 November 1974 one gram more or less of marijuana; wrongfully possessing on 14 November 1974 an unknown amount of amphetamines; three specifications of absenting himself from his place of duty; and two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  

On 8 January 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 January 1975, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive an undesirable, discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

On 27 January 1975, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 6 months and 1 day of creditable active service and had no 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.  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.  The Board notes that the applicant was almost 20 years old at the time of the wrongful possession offenses and he had over a year in service.  He elected not to submit any statement in his own behalf that might have explained the presence of an illegal substance in his locker.  

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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

__eb____  __aao___  __hof___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024595	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991104D	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730127	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.