MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             19 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000035621

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded.

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

He enlisted on 13 June 1980 as a food service specialist.

On 4 September 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, detention of pay and 7 days extra duty.

He was convicted by summary court-martial on 10 December 1982 for being AWOL from 8 October to 17 October 1982 (10 days), for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and for sleeping at his post.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1.  His sentence was adjudged and approved on 10 December 1982.

On 17 January 1983 the applicant departed AWOL and remained AWOL until he
surrendered to military authorities in San Francisco, California on 4 March 1983.

On 14 March 1983, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 12 April 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 21 April 1983.  He had a total of 
2 years, 7 months and 13 days of creditable service and had a total of 86 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 17 July 1997.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 15 May 1998.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  

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.  

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

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:

_JPH____  EJA __  VBC              GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035621	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830421	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.