MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028398

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had a strong military career and was never given an opportunity to correct his mistake or given treatment for the many problems he had.  He believes if proper intervention had been given to him he could have changed his habits and resumed his career.  His problems were the result of his being in combat.  He states he will send his DD Form 214 and orders of commendation as supporting evidence under separate packet but no such documents have been received.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 December 1965.  In his career he held three military occupational specialties (MOS) – 71D (Legal Clerk), 36C (Wire Systems Installer/Operator) and 31V (Tactical Communications System Operator/Mechanic).

The applicant served in Vietnam from 2 May 1968 – 28 May 1969.  It cannot be determined what his duty MOS(s) was while in Vietnam.  He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm for his service in Vietnam.

The applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 8 June 1977.  

On 21 March 1979, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 6 to 8 March 1979.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-5, suspended, and a forfeiture of $300.00 pay for 1 month.  On 27 April 1979, the suspension was vacated because he went AWOL from 28 March to 3 April 1979.

On 18 January 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 29 May 1979 to 14 January 1980.  (Prior to this period of AWOL, he had had five other periods of AWOL.)

On 18 January 1980, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  He made no mention of any medical problems on his Report of Medical History.

On 18 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 25 February 1980, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 13 March 1980, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 14 years, 9 months and 6 days of creditable active service and had 233 days of lost time. 

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, 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 16 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

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.  The Board does not agree with the applicant’s contention that he was never given an opportunity to correct his mistake as his separation action did not take place until after his sixth period of AWOL.  The applicant made no mention of any type of health problems, either physical or mental, on his Report of Medical History.  If he had had any mental health problems, he could have voluntarily admitted himself to any one of several programs/offices, such as the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) or Mental Hygiene, for treatment.

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

__rvo___  __rgh___  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028398	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800313	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.