MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 June 2000                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000035336

	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.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge he was not aware of the type of separation that he was receiving.  He believed that he was receiving a general discharge.

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

On 19 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve, for a period of 6 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C10 (Motor Transport Operator).  In October 1975, the applicant was notified that he would be required to serve on active duty for not satisfactorily performing his obligations as a Reservist.  However, due to the lack of documentation supporting the recommendation and a delay in processing the case, the recommendation for active duty was disapproved.  The applicant was counseled and advised of his rights.

On 21 September 1978, the applicant was involuntarily ordered to active duty because of eight unexcused absences within a period of 1 year, from his scheduled unit of training.  The applicant was to report to Fort Bliss, Texas on
6 November 1978.  However, he failed to report to Fort Bliss, Texas as ordered.  

On 20 September 1979, military authorities in Phoenix Arizona apprehended the applicant.  He was later transported to the Reception Station at Fort Bliss, Texas. 

On 21 September 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 6 November 1978 to 19 September 1979.

On 24 September 1979, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant 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 benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated, in effect that he was experiencing financial difficulties and wanted to pursue a civilian career.  He further stated that if he was returned to duty he would again go AWOL. 

On 25 September 1979, the applicant was found fit for retention. 

On 11 October 1979, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 5 November 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 had completed 1 month and 12 days of creditable active service. 
 
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 this requirement.

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.  The contention of the applicant has been noted by the Board.  However, his contention is not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  The applicant was counseled and advised by legal counsel of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged in writing that he understood the effects of a discharge UOTHC.  After being advised by legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. 

4.  This Board is convinced that the applicant was aware of the type of separation he was receiving. 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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

__vbc___  __jea___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035336	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000620	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751105	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.