MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035483

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served more than 4 years, but in the end, the use of drugs and alcohol got in his way of finishing out his term.  He was young and didn’t think it mattered, but now he sees that it does.  He thinks his discharge was not fair, considering he served more than 4 years with the Army.

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

He enlisted on 5 January 1977 and, after training, was assigned to Germany.

On 26 February 1981, the applicant was formally charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 July 1979 to 13 February 1981.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In so doing, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and added that he had no desire for rehabilitation or further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the discharge under other than honorable conditions that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 June 1981, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 6 July 1981 at Fort Ord, California.  He had 
2 years, 11 months and 3 days of creditable service and 574 days of time lost.

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 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.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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 
20 years of age at the time he went AWOL.

4.  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.

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

__rjw____  __js_____  __ra____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035483	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810706	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.