MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           18 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024906

	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. Judy L. Blanchard Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the Army had him to sign a paper which stated that within 6 months his discharge would be upgraded to a general discharge.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 July 1973, for 3 years.  

On 8 April 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the destruction of government property.  His imposed punishments was a forfeiture of $25.00 pay, 7 days restriction and extra duty.

On 14 May 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 21 June 1974 to 11 May 1975.

On 15 May 1975, a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file. The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 19 June 1975, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 

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, and advisory opinion(s), 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

3.  The contention of the applicant has been noted by the Board.  However, it is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record. 

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

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

__sac___  __ew____  __svw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024906	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990818	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750619	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A94.07l	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9407	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.