MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 January 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028340

	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. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was very young and had just lost his grandfather.  He believes that in all fairness his discharge should really be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

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

On 8 August 1978, the applicant at the age of 19 enlisted in the Regular Army, for 4 years.  The applicant successfully completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B10 (Power Generator and Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 15 June 1979, the applicant received a Letter of Appreciation for his outstanding assistance during a maintenance inspection.

On 19 September 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three occasions of leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $100.00 pay, a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 90 days) and 7 day in Correctional Custody Facility.  

On 20 December 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 to 19 October 1979, from 21 October to
8 November 1979 and from 16 November to 16 December 1979.

On 10 January 1980, 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 behalf, but declined to due so. 

On 24 January 1980, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 30 January 1980, 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 1 year, 3 months and 26 days of creditable active service during this enlistment. 
 
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.  

On 28 June 1982, the Army Discharge Review denied the applicant’s request for an 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, 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'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 applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed 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

__EW____  __JS____  __ALR___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028340	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800130	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.000	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.