MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026587

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant makes no statement and submits no supporting evidence.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 20 July 1967.  

The applicant first went AWOL (absent without leave) on 27 August 1967 for 63 days.  In all he had 7 periods of AWOL.  He was convicted by a special court-martial for a 169-day period of AWOL.  

On 15 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 11 November 1969 to on or about           8 March 1972. 

On 17 March 1972, 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 30 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 5 April 1972, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 3 days of creditable active service and had 1,444 days of lost time. 

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgraded discharge in 1974.  At the time he stated he felt he was not treated justly because his mother was sick, he had applied for a hardship discharge and it was denied.  There is no evidence of record to show he applied for a hardship discharge.  The ADRB denied 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, 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.  He had an opportunity at the time to make a statement in his own behalf and did not do so.  He presents no supporting evidence with this application.

3.  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__  __dsj___  __cjs___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026587	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720405	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.