MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 February 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028033

	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.

	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted.

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

On 11 February 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  The applicant successfully completed Combat Basic Training.

On 3 May 1974, while in Advanced Individual Training, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 to 29 April 1974.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $25.00 pay, 45 days restriction and 
30 days extra duty.  

On 20 December 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 May to 20 July 1974 and from 13 August to 
19 December 1974.

On 31 December 1974, 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated, in effect that he came into the Army to see what it was about.  He completed basic training and went AWOL shortly thereafter.  He further stated that he understood that he would receive an undesirable discharge and that he would lose his benefits.  

On 21 January 1975, the applicant was found fit for retention. 

On 23 January 1975, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 10 February 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.  He had completed 4 months of creditable active 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 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 is authorized, 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.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__cmf___  __jea___  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028033	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750210	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.