MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024926

	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. David H Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham 		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was promised his discharge would be upgraded 6 months after discharge.  He has not been able to attain schooling because of his type of discharge.  He has been in prison for years and will be getting out in another 8 to 12 years, and wishes for a fresh start.

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

He enlisted on 22 August 1978.  Although he completed basic training, he did not complete advance individual training for reasons not available in his record.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Report of Separation from Active Duty, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 22 March 1979 for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  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 applicant was discharged at Fort Gordon, Georgia, with 7 months and 1 day 
of creditable active service.

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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 the applicant’s request for discharge under Chapter 10, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the processing of his discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.  It would appear that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if it is determined that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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

__VBC__  __JPS___  __KLW__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024926	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790322	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.