MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           12 January 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029264

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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) of 13 April 1983 be upgraded to honorable (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he went AWOL because the stories of Vietnam veterans frightened him.  He states that he now wants to clear his name. 

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

On 22 August 1974 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland, for on-the-job (OJT) training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 31 December 1975, the applicant was charged with five periods of AWOL.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the charges, and after legal consultation, he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  

On 2 January 1976 the appropriate authority approved his discharge and ordered him separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A).  Accordingly, on 23 January 1976 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day active military service, and 121 days of lost time.

The applicant had a short period of service from 29 March 1977 to 13 June 1977.  He was released by reason of voided enlistment, misconduct – fraudulent entry, without a characterization of service.

On 17 February 1981 the applicant managed to reenlist for a period of 3 years even with a prior discharge characterized as under other than honorable.  He was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for BCT.  He did not complete BCT.

The applicant departed AWOL on 15 March 1981 and returned to military control on 30 March 1981.  On 30 March 1981 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being AWOL.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $116.

On 29 March 1982 the applicant again departed AWOL, and surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 21 March 1983.  After legal consultation, he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  

On 28 March 1983 the appropriate authority approved his discharge and ordered him separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A).  Accordingly, on 13 April 1983 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, sets forth 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 (ADRB) for upgrade of his April 1983 discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  The ADRB reviewed the applicant’s January 1976 discharge on 26 January 1980 and determined that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. 

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 April 1983 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.  

2.  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.  

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

___jns___  ___inw__  ___lls___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029264	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000112	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830413	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	7100	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  9217		
 2.  0100		
 3.  9500		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.