MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027310

	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. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi  		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  He submits no evidence or statement to support his request.

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

He entered active duty on 3 April 1979 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Story, Virginia.

On 20 July 1983, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for four specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 5 March 1985, he was administered NJP for wrongful use of marijuana.

During the period May 1985 to January 1986, the applicant received nine formal counseling statements concerning failure to report to his appointed places of duty and poor duty performance evaluation.

On 2 October 1986, the applicant was formally charged with six specifications of failure to report to his appointed place of duty, and for failure to obey a lawful order.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he acknowledged he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and that he did not desire further rehabilitation, nor had any desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the discharge under other than honorable conditions that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 5 December 1986, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 31 December 1986 at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  He had 7 years, 8 months and 28 days of creditable 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 at any time after the charges have 
been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 11 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for 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.  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.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  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.

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

__cla___  ___jph___  __mvt____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027310	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19861231	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.