MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028028

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told President Carter pardoned those who received undesirable discharges.  He loves his country, he’s sorry for what he did and if he had the chance he would do things differently.  Now his son is thinking about joining the service and he would like his son to know he has a good discharge.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 30 June 1951.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on                    10 September 1968.  He completed basic combat training but not advanced individual training.

On 12 May 1969, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the periods 9 February to 9 March 1969 and 11 March to 8 April 1969 and for knowingly and falsely representing that he had his parents required consent to enlist when in fact parental consent had never been given. 

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 2 June 1969, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 9 June 1969, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, 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 5 months and         29 days of creditable active service and had 93 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, 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.

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.

3.  The Board is empathetic with the applicant’s pride in his son wanting to join the service but this factor does not warrant granting the relief requested.

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___  __cla___  __kyf___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028028	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690609	
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.