MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            3 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028891

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was an alcoholic when he was in the Army.  He further states that he was young and he had marital problems.

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

On 24 February 1983 he enlisted in the Army at age 25 for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 November 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 20 days of total service and he had a total of 44 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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. There is no evidence of record to support the applicant’s contention that he had an alcohol problem while he was in the Army.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 25 years old at the time of his enlistment in the Army.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, in reasonable to presume that what the Army did in his case was correct.

5.  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

___ewl__  ___be___  __mkp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028891	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/11/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  651	144.6300/A63.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.