MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           8 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029125

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he wanted more than anything to be a part of the Army.  His Sergeant had it in for him; he knew about his civil convictions and threatened to have him thrown out of the Army.  He went AWOL in hopes of being transferred to another unit to get away from him.

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

He was born on 9 February 1948.  He completed 11 years of formal education.
On 18 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years with no prior active service.

On 7 August 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 to 6 August 1974.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $70.00 pay, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.

On 20 August 1974, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for Fraudulent Entry.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s concealment of civil court convictions. 

On 12 September 1974, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He states in effect, that before he enlisted he asked if one could enlist with a past record, he was told yes, provided that he didn’t have any convictions pending.  He was also told 
that if he wanted to leave right-away not to disclose anything, for it would only delay him.

Subsequently, the commander recommended that the applicant be discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.  On 20 September 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

On 24 September 1974, the applicant was hospitalized for treatment of a broken wrist.  He was placed on convalescent leave and was scheduled to return to duty on 30 November 1974.  On 1 December 1974, the applicant was reported AWOL.

On 19 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 December 1974, until apprehended by civil authorities on 
8 June 1975.

On 27 June 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to report to his appointed place of duty on 23 June 1975.  His imposed punishment was an Oral Reprimand, a forfeiture of $25.00 pay, 14 days restriction and 7 days extra duty.

On 18 August 1975, court martial charges were preferred against the applicant for attempting to steal US currency a dollar value of $22.00.

0n 21 August 1975, court martial charges were preferred against the applicant for
failing to obey a lawful order.

On 25 August 1975, 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, that he joined the Army to make a better person of himself.  His attitude worsened because no one cared about anyone else.  He went AWOL because his family needed him and there was no need for him to keep getting into trouble.  He further states, in effect, that he was labeled a smart ass because he didn’t know how to mind his own business.  He does not need this Army and wants out.

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

On 17 September 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 29 September 1975, 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 served 8 months and 24 days of creditable active service and he had 200 days of lost 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.

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

__rvo___  __eja___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029125	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000308	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750929	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.