MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026452

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, 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 (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 feels that he should have been granted a medical discharge.  He states that he was not mentally coherent enough to understand all that was going on with him.  He further stated that he was processed out of the military with an undesirable discharge.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 1970, for 2 years.  The applicant completed Combat Basic Training; however, he did not complete Advanced Individual Training. 

The applicant’s military record shows that he was reported for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 to 14 September 1970 and from 5 to 20 October 1970.  However, the particulars are missing from his file.

On 30 January 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of being AWOL from 27 October 1970 to 15 January 1971, from 20 January 1971 to 28 June 1973 and from 8 October to 6 December 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, but he declined to do so. 

A psychiatric evaluation diagnosed the applicant has having an inadequate personality and strongly recommended that the applicant be discharged under Army regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

However, on 4 February 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
3 March 1974, he was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 9 months and 9 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.  

On 30 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 states, that he should have received a medical discharge because at the time of discharge he was not mentally coherent.  There is no medical evidence nor has the applicant presented any evidence, which indicates that he was not medically fit for retention at the time of his separation.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

4.  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. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026452	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740303	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.