MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           9 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025215

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter 		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 his discharge is too harsh and his overall service is more deserving of an honorable discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s issue concerning the harshness of his discharge notes that the pending charge at the time of discharge involves the firing of his weapon on New Years eve.  This incident apparently happened while the applicant was intoxicated and it does not appear that anyone was injured other than the applicant; his injuries having occurred when his sergeant physically assaulted him for having fired his weapon in the compound.

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

He enlisted on 27 August 1969 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Irwin, California.  In June 1970, he was reassigned to Vietnam.

On 15 October 1970, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to report to his appointed place of duty. His punishment included reduction in pay grade to private E-2.

On 26 October 1970, he was administered NJP for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included reduction in pay grade to private E-1.

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 he was discharged on 2 March 1971 for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  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 Lewis, Washington, with 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of creditable 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.
On 9 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

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 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.  The Board also presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant or counsel to overcome that presumption.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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

__jh____  __tdh___  ___cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025215	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000309	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710302	
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.