MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  16 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999027122

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he worked hard while he was in the military, but he was always passed over for promotions and schools.  He served an overseas tour with a perfect record and he came back a private.  Others in his unit made mistakes and they were promoted.  He made one mistake at age 22 and the Army gladly put him out after serving 3 years and 6 months.  In support of his request he submits a statement written in his own behalf, two letters that he received from his local Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), a letter that was written on his behalf by personnel at the school that he was attending and an DD Form 256A, Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 25 June 1992, that was not issued to him at the time of separation.  NOTE:  This document appears to be questionable as to its authenticity and unverified signatures. 

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

That on 27 December 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D (Calvary Scout).  He served in Korea from 15 May 1989-10 May 1990.  On 10 May 1990, he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.  He was advanced to the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4 on 1 February 
1991.  There are several certificates of achievement which indicate successful service between 1989 and early 1992.

On an unknown date, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to obey a Lawful General Regulation.  Neither the charge sheet nor the date of the action is contained in his records.  On 9 June 1992, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense for which she was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of a UOTHC discharge.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He admitted that he had made a terrible mistake, and he requested a characterization of service that would allow him a fresh start.  

On 11 June 1992, competent authority approved the applicant’s request.  He was administratively reduced to pay grade E-1 in connection with this approval.  On 
25 June 1992, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge by reason of an administrative discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 3 years, 
5 months and 29 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.  He was also entitled to receive the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

On 19 May 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then 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 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 HD certificate that the applicant has provided dated 25 June 1992 does not correctly reflect his characterization of service.  He was separated with a UOTHC discharge, and neither the ADRB nor this Board has granted him an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.  Further, there is nothing in his record to indicate that he was discriminated against and he has provided no probative evidence to the contrary.

4.  While the earlier parts of his service appear to be fully successful, his 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 then in effect. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

6.  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

FKM____  RVO____  SK______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027122	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.