MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029247

	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. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 (UOHC) be upgraded to general under honorable conditions (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded to be eligible for VA benefits.

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

On 28 August 1974 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for basic combat training (BCT).  On 24 October 1974 the applicant departed AWOL.  He did not complete BCT.

The specific facts circumstances leading to the applicant’s separation from service are not contained within the record, however, the record does contain a 6 March 1975 voluntary request from the applicant for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-100, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicating that the applicant was separated on 28 March 1975 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, with a UOHC.  He was credited with 1 month and 27 days active service, and 155 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth the policies and procedures 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. 

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  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.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The Board determined that the applicant’s length and quality of service did not sufficiently mitigate his extensive period of AWOL.  Therefore, the characterization of service was commensurate with his overall service.

3.  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.

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

____ew__  ___sk___  __alr____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029247	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750325	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	7100	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  9217		
 2.  0100		
 3.  9500		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.