MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:          22 December 1999                    
	DOCKET NUMBER: AR1999025482

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 	     

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his undesirable discharge (correctly referred to as a under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to a honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: His series of misconducts that led to his UOTHC discharge were signs that he could not adopt to military life and that he should have been given an administratively discharge – not branded with an UOTHC discharge.  He asked for an administrative discharge, but his pleas were ignored.  His was a normal person, with a good record until he entered active duty.

NEW EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case 30 September 1981 (COPY ATTACHED)

The applicant submitted only his application and self-authored statement as new evidence.  The applicant states that his short military history coupled with the fact he did not even complete basic training clearly indicates he should have received an administrative discharge, not an undesirable discharge.  He states he asked the company and others for the administrative discharge but was ignored.   He maintains that his good behavior prior and after service are further indication he simply could not make the adjustment to military life.  He believes that 27 years is enough time to have passed for the military to correct the  error and injustice of his discharged.

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:

The record contains several letters the applicant has written since 1975.  The following is a summary of their content.  He (applicant) predicted he would not like the service and after a couple of days in the reception station knew he didn’t like the Army.  He soon went AWOL.  After going AWOL, being persuaded by his parents to return, and receiving punishment, he was finally sent to basic training.  He immediately felt different.  He was older than the other trainees at age 24, possessed an Associates degree, had lived on his own was the only draftee in the company and since he had come from the stockade was marked as a trouble maker.  Upon arrival at the basic training company the company commander and first sergeant gave him a pep talk.  They told him he should accept military life as it is, and resolve himself to take it one day at a time and redirect his efforts toward achieving a satisfactory military record and honorable discharge.  He responded to the talk by informing them he was 99% sure he didn’t like the Army and could not adjust and one way or another he had to get out, the type of discharge he had to take didn’t matter then.  The only thing that mattered was getting out.  While in the basic training company he met several other recruits who could not adjust and were waiting for their administrative discharge which would make them eligible for GI benefits.  He did not understand why an administrative discharge was not offered to him.  Over the next several of weeks he trained, but his heart was not into the training.  He let the commander know but the commander only wanted him to train.  He responded by going AWOL. Upon returning the Army responded by sentencing him to the stockade.  He did not want to go through the humiliating in-process procedure at the stockade so he refused to go until assisted by MP’s.  While at the stockade a JAG officer informed him he could be discharged with an UOTHC discharge in lieu of a court-martial.  He wanted out so he signed the necessary papers.

2.  The applicant’s record does reflect that his misconduct began within days of entering active duty and one option of the commander was an administrative discharge.  The commander, however is held responsible for deciding which administrative tool to use.  An administrative discharge is not automatic.

3.  The applicant freely admits he chose to ignore the advice and encouragement from his parents and chain of command on several occasions, nor respond to discipline action.  The Board did consider that the was an educated 24 year old adult, yet made a conscious decision to proceed with the misconduct that successfully led to his goal – an early discharge from the Army.  The applicant refers to his being different than the other trainees due to his education, age, and independence at the time of these events compared to the other trainees.  Many of those young men he found lesser than himself chose to meet the challenges of military life, give up years of their life for service to their country and served honorably.  While his decisions resulted in fines, imprisonment and a discharge that has had a long term adverse impact on his life.  The applicant’s writings portray an individual that has yet to understand which course of action was the correct one.  He appears to have no respect for those who served yet wishes to use benefits, such as the GI bill, earned by those who have served honorably..

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 Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate.  Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and issues submitted the applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

6.  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.

7.  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

_rvo_____  _aao____  _ewl____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC 1999028905	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.39	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.