MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  8 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999028620

	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.

			Director	
	Ms. Lee Tinsley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was in denial about being an alcoholic during that time and that he has been through and is still currently seeking treatment.

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

He was born on 2 September 1956.  On 24 November 1974, the applicant 
enlisted in the Regular Army in MOS 93J10 (ATC Radar Controller).  He reenlisted 
on 22 November 1976.

On 28 March 1979, the applicant was reported AWOL and surrendered to military authorities on 2 September 1981.  He again went AWOL on 8 December 1981 and was apprehended by military authorities 2 days later.  He was released from confinement on 11 December 1981 while he awaited discharge.

On 10 December 1981 charges were preferred.  After consulting with counsel the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offenses charged that could result in imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of conviction by a court-martial.  He also stated that he had no desire for continued military service and understood that he might be deprived of many or all veterans benefits as a result of the discharge under other than honorable conditions that he might receive if his request was approved.  He waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 25 January 1982, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed discharge under other than honorable conditions.  Effective 
28 January 1982 the applicant was discharged under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had completed 4 years and 9 months creditable service and had 2 years, 5 months and 5 days of lost time.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Rifle M-16 (Qual) Badge, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence of record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the required 15-year time frame for a discharge review.

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.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Discharge was effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was discharged.

2.  Although it has been over 17 years since the applicant was issued a UOTHC discharge, his overall service record does not outweigh the gravity of his offenses.  Accordingly, relief is not warranted.  Additionally, the applicant has provided nothing to demonstrate postservice good citizenship of such a nature that it would mitigate his offenses and thereby warrant relief.

3.  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

   RO            EL           EA            DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028620	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110	Upgrade Discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.