MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            20 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026660

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should be upgraded because he told the senior officer at the time that he was grieving over the loss of his parents, that he could not cope with military life, and that he needed to be with his family members, aunt, cousins, etc., who served as his new family and kept him strong. 

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

The applicant enlisted in Nashville, Tennessee on 9 June 1978 for a period of 3 years and training as a supply specialist.  At the time of his enlistment he indicated that his parents were deceased and that his aunt had court-ordered custody.

He successfully completed his training and was transferred to a military police battalion at Fort Hood, Texas for duty as a supply specialist.

On 20 December 1978 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him again on 10 January 1979 for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 22 January 1979 the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions, his failure to get out of bed, and his disrespect towards an NCO.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 25 January 1979.

On 1 February 1979 he went AWOL and remained absent until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Livonia, Michigan on 4 June 1980 and was returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky, where charges were preferred against him.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do indicate that he consulted with counsel and that he admitted guilt to the AWOL charges against him.  His records also show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 July 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 9 months and 18 days of total active service and had 489 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit when compared to the available facts and circumstances, the extensive length of his absence over such a short period of time, and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

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

___be___  ___rgh __  ____gg__  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026660	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/07/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689/GOOD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.