MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999025378

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 (UOHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has a lot to offer the government in his field of expertise and wants to secure an intern position to assist the government with facing some of its environmental issues.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf, letters of character reference and achievements since departing the Army.

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

On 19 August 1969 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  At the time of enlistment he was 17 years old.  He was assigned to Fort Ord, California for basic combat training (BCT).  The applicant on two separate occasions, during the month of September 1969, departed BCT in an AWOL status.  He was charged with the aforementioned periods of AWOL.  On 24 October 1969 the applicant was found guilty by summary court-martial of two specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $76.00.  It appears the applicant completed BCT and was reassigned at Fort Ord for advanced infantry training (AIT).

On 18 January 1970 the applicant departed his unit at Fort Ord in an AWOL status and did remain so until on or about 6 February 1970.

On 12 February 1970 the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and did remain so until on or about 14 March 1970.  He was charged with the aforementioned period of AWOL.  On 31 March 1970 he was found guilty by summary court-martial of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 25 days (suspended for 50 days) and a forfeiture of $76.00.

Between 4 April 1970 and 8 March 1971 the applicant continued to alternate between accumulating periods of AWOL and being a student in AIT.

The specific facts concerning the applicant’s separation from the Army are not in the record, however his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.

On 22 March 1971 the applicant was discharged from the Regular Army after completing 6 months and 26 days of active military service and accruing 373 days of lost time.

On 3 February 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s records under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for upgrade of his discharge under the SDRP.

On 9 February 1999 the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge; however, he was beyond the 15-year statute of limitations and was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief.

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.  The Board acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined in his application and/or in the documents with his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant would have been required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  Additionally, the applicant would have been advised 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.

3.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

4.  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.

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

___fe___  ___kak__  __ra____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025378	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710322	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200  C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.7100		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.