MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1999              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026069

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he would like his discharge upgraded.  He is now preaching and has completed 8 years in Seminary school.

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

He was born on 25 January 1959.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 May 1971, for 3 years, with no prior service.

On 15 December 1977, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 to 28 November 1977. 

On 12 January 1978, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from 3 to
5 January 1978.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $198.00 pay per month for two months, a reduction to pay grade E-1 and 30 days confinement. 

On 29 March 1978, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 16  January to 20 February 1978.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $100.00  pay per month for two months and confinement at hard labor for 45 days (suspended until 29 August 1978). 

On 22 September 1978, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from
12 to 13 September 1978.  His imposed punishment was 7 days in correctional custody facility (suspended for 60 days).

On 19 October 1978, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from 2 to
17 October 1978.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $90 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  The reduction was set aside on 29 November 1978, and all rights, privileges, and property affected restored. 

On 20 March 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 March 1979 to 11 March 1980.

On 21 March 1980, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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.
The applicant stated in effect, that he joined the Army for travel and adventure. 
He was mislead by the recruiter, who told him that the Army was  something that it really wasn’t.  He further states that the reason he wanted to get out was because he had lost a great deal of respect in the last three years.  The standards have drop tremendously and he was not able to further his education due to his MOS.

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 10 April 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
30 April 1980, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.

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.

On 5 December 1995 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an 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.  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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__rvo___  __rgh___  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026069	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800430	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.