MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 January 2000                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025262

	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.

	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 he was only 17 years old at the time he was forced to enlist into the military.  He further states that he was not mature enough to make rational decisions in regard to the consequences of signing discharge papers.  He just wanted to go home and signing the discharge papers was a way out.  He was under age and without adult representation.

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

On 8 January 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  The applicant successfully completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

On 23 February 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 to 21 February 1973.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $35.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.  

On 23 April 1973, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 30 March to 19 April 1973.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 2 months.

On 12 October 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 9 July to 7 October 1973.

On 16 October 1973, the applicant was found fit for retention. 

On 19 October 1973, 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf.  He stated, in effect that he just did not like the Army, the uniform or the people in it; that he would continue to go AWOL until they let him out and that he understood that if he took the undesirable discharge he would lose his benefits such as housing, schooling etc. 

On 17 November 1973, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 23 November 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 7 months and 15 days 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 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 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.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  The applicant also provided a written statement acknowledging that he understood the effects of a discharge UOTHC. 

4.  Therefore, 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

__rgh___  __gfg___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025262	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19731123	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chp10.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.