MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028570

	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:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr. John D. Miller		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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, he feels that his discharge was too severe considering the circumstances.  He spent 120 days in the post stockade without a trial.  He accepted the discharge because he was told that a chapter 10 would be his punishment for what he did.  Immediately upon discharge he was arrested by the Federal Marshals for the same offense and he spent 1 1/2 years in a federal reformatory.  He was punished twice for the same offense.

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

He was born on 6 May 1947.  He completed 10 years of formal education.
He was inducted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1970, for 2 years. 
On 16 May 1971, he was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 
17 May 1971, for 4 years.

The DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 show that the applicant was absent
without leave (AWOL) from 24 to 26 January 1972.  Evidence in the record shows he did receive an Article 15; however, the Article 15 is missing from the applicant’s record.

On 17 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant
for being AWOL from 24 February to 2 March 1972 and on 24 September 1972, with intent to deceive, signed an official document (DD Form 1172).

On 14 April 1972, 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.
The applicant stated in effect, while he was in the post stockade that some people could make it in the Army however, he was not one of them.  He further 
stated that he would return to duty and not go AWOL again, all he really wanted is to get out of the Army.

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 6 June 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 12 June 1972, 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 1 year, 3 months and 23 days of creditable active service.  Neither his DA Form 20 nor DD Form 214 shows any confinement time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10, of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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 trail by court.  A discharge UOTHC 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.  He provides no evidence to show that he was arrested by civil authorities for the same offense.

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

__ejo___  __jdm___  __jma___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028570	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720612	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.