MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035560

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols 		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 be upgraded to general and that his narrative reason for separation be changed to Convenience of the Government.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because: (1) clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge; (2) under current standards, he would not receive the type of discharge he did; (3) his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good (or pretty good); 
(4) he received letters of recommendations; (5) his record of promotions show he was generally a good service member; (6) there were other acts of merit; (7) he has been a good citizen since his discharge; (8) his record of nonjudicial punishments indicate only isolated or minor offenses; (9) his record of AWOL indicates only minor or isolated offenses; (10) his ability to serve was impaired because of marital problems; (11) personal and financial problems impaired his ability to serve; (12) he faced racial discrimination and that impaired his ability to serve; (13) certain other problems impaired his ability to serve (his marriage and other servicemen in his unit bothering/harassing his wife while he was on duty); (14) the punishment he got at discharge was too harsh, it was much worse than most people got for the same offense; (15) his command abused its authority when it decided to discharge him and give him a bad discharge; and (16) he had applied or tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.  He also contends that he was not aware that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) were available to upgrade his discharge.  In support of his application, he submits an itemized list of his contentions; a personal statement, dated 10 January 2000; and three character reference letters.  

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

The applicant enlisted on 6 April 1972 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana, for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty 11B (light weapons infantry). 

While in AIT, the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of assault with a dangerous weapon (sword) likely to produce bodily harm.  He was sentenced to forfeit $100 pay for 3 months, hard labor for 3 months, reduction to E-1 and restriction for 2 months.  On 10 October 1972 the convening authority approved the sentence.

His records show he went AWOL from 10 July 1973 to 16 July 1973; 12 October 1973 to 15 October 1973; and 18 October 1973 to 11 November 1973.  There is no evidence in the available records of any disciplinary action being taken against the applicant for these AWOL offenses.
However, his records indicate that charges were preferred against the applicant after the last AWOL offense.  After consulting with counsel on 16 November 1973, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.        

The applicant’s intermediate commanders recommended that his request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

On 19 December 1973 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge with separation program designator (SPD) 246. 

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 9 January 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had 1 year, 7 months and 28 days of total active service and had 36 days of lost time due to AWOL.    

Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows SPD 246.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) shows SPD “246” for the narrative reason “Discharge for the good of the service”.  
On 13 January 1984 the ADRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to general.

On 30 March 1994 the ABCMR denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. 

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.

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 contentions were noted by the Board.  However, there is no evidence available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was not aware that the ABCMR and the ADRB were available to upgrade his discharge is not valid.  Evidence of record shows he applied to the ADRB in 1984 and applied to the ABCMR in 1994 for recharacterization of his discharge. 

3.  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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulation.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.

6.  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.

7.  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

AAO____  VBC____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035560	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740109	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.