MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            16 June 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999024887

	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:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.  He also states that several soldiers were charged with allegations equal to or more severe and received a lighter punishment.  He further states that he was the only one to receive a court-martial and that he had no previous disciplinary action with his company prior to his allegations.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 10 February 1995 as a wheel vehicle repairman.

The applicant’s court-martial charges are unavailable for review.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 21 December 1996, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 12 days of creditable service.

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 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.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

3.  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

JMA____  MHM____  ALR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024887	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990616	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19961221	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.