MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            19 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027813

	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. Leland A. Edwards 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he signed his separation paperwork under duress.

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

He was inducted on 17 April 1969.

On 10 June 1969, while attending basic training, the applicant was administered non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for AWOL. 

He was administered non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ twice while attending Advanced Individual Training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, for AWOL.  He did not complete his training.

 On 14 November 1969, the applicant was dropped from his unit’s rolls.   Over the next 7 years, the same sequence of events occurred repeatedly, he would surrender to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and each time he would leave without authorization and be dropped from the unit’s rolls.   

On 15 June 1970, he was confined for 32 days and returned to duty, he again left without authorization.

On 6 January 1977, the applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey, where charges for AWOL were preferred and after consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he could not adapt to the Army. 

On 3 February 1977, the applicant was discharged.  His DD Form reflects
8 months and 16 days of creditable service, 2592 days lost (2087 days lost subsequent to normal expiration of term of service), and 24 days excess leave. 

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 trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.    

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge on 14 August 1979 and was denied.  The Board found the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  The Board noted that had the applicant been tried by court-martial he could have received a punitive discharge rather than a discharge UOTHC. 

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, is presumed to be 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

__RVO__  ___CLG__  __JPI___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027813	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000119	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770203	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR   635-200 CH 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.