MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           16 March 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999028371

	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.

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch Jr. 		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  That his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that he was unjustly separated with a UOTHC discharge due to the fact that he had extenuating circumstances.  Further, he feels that he would not have received the same characterization of service under current standards.  He submits DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for periods of service ending on 3 March 1979 and 13 January 1981, separation orders, promotion orders, and his UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

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

That on 29 September 1978, he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for 
6 years.  On 6 October 1978, he was ordered to active duty for training.  He completed the training requirement and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63H (Automotive Repairman).  On 3 March 1979, he was released from active duty and was transferred back to his Reserve unit.

On 1 April 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He was assigned duties in MOS 63W (Wheel Vehicle Repairman) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

On 23 May 1980, he departed his unit at Fort Knox in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.
On 7 November 1980, he was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Knox. 

On 18 November 1980, court-martial charges were preferred for the period of AWOL from 
23 May-7 November 1980.  On 20 November 1980, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense for which he was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  He also stated that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He stated in a letter submitted in his own behalf that he joined the military because he needed a job.  The Army had kept him from seeing his family and that it was causing him to be in the process of getting a divorce.  He felt that he was no longer able to handle the Army therefore, he was requesting a discharge.

On 5 December 1980, the PCF commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 9 December 1980, competent authority approved the discharge.  

On 13 January 1981, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 3 months and 29 days of active military service and he had 168 days lost time due to being AWOL. 

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then 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 reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

4.  The Board took into consideration all of the applicant’s service to include his prior 
honorable period of service and concluded that the quality of his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to the characterization of service he is requesting.  

5.  Further, there is nothing in the applicant’s record or with his application to indicate that extenuating circumstances mitigated his misconduct.  He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

6.  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

__jlp____  __owt___  __cjp____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028371	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	810113	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.