MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028363

	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. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded.  His only offenses were being absent without leave and financial mismanagement.

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

He was born on 24 November 1962.  He completed 12 years or formal education.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1980, for 4 years.
He completed basic training and advance individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15J10 (Lance Operator Fire Direction Specialist).

On 27 January 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudical punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 November to 6 December 1982.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and 14 days confinement (correctional facility) effective 27 January 1983.

On 19 April 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 28 January to 21 March 1983.

On 27 April 1983, 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 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 he declined to do so.

On 13 May 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  On 13 May 1983, 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 completed 2 years, 9 months and 11 days of active service and he had 67 days of lost time.

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 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 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.

3.  The type of discharge 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

__emw___  __ewl___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028363	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830513	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.