MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028032

	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. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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: In effect, he completed Basic Training at Ft. Jackson, SC, and was assigned to the Second Armored Division, Ft Hood, TX.  He reenlisted  for six years and asked to be sent to Alaska.  While in Alaska he became eligible for post housing, which automatically extended his tour of duty for18 months.  Six months prior to his rotation date he went to the company clerk to start his extension process.  Several weeks past he received orders to Ft. Eustis, VA.  He felt that he had been cheated by the system.  However, he packed his personal belongings and moved his family to Virginia.  After arriving to Ft. Eustis, he loss his entitlements of HOLA,COLA and overseas pay and along with the deductions from money advancement in order to cover moving expenses he was not able to cover living expenses and he and his family became destitute.  He was told by the post Chaplain that if he became a deserter, wherever he was picked up or turned himself in became his new post.  After weighing the situation, he sold everything he had and purchased airline tickets for himself and family back to Alaska.  His situation did not change after turning himself in, he received orders 5 days later to Ft. Carson.  After being given a direct order to go to Ft. Carson he decided that the only thing for him to do was to sign off the post and stay in town for 45 days as before only this time he was a 2nd offender, so he requested a discharge for the good of the service.

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

On 8 April 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, he was discharged on 8 September 1971, after serving 8 months and 1 day of active service.  On
9 September 1971, he immediately reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

On 15 May 1975 the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 January to 20 February 1975.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4.

On 1 December 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 to 28 September 1975 and for disobeying a lawful order.

On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trail 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 3 December 1971, the applicant’s Commander endorsed the discharge request and stated in effect, that the applicant was totally unmotivated and that the applicant stated repeatedly that he had no desire to remain in the service.  The Commander further stated that his presence in the company was disruptive to the unit ‘s morale and discipline and it would be in the best interests of the Army to eliminate his as quickly and possible.

A physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 16 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of discharge UOTHC.  On 
30 December 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service
with a discharge UOTHC.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, 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 UOTHC 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, and advisory opinion(s), 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 chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  There is no evidence in his record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegations.  Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

3.  The applicant voluntary request for separation under the provision 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.

4.  The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jhl ___  __tdh ___  __jps ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028032	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751230	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chp 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.