MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035940

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 the third digit in his social security number (SSN) be corrected to read 4 instead of the 2 it now reads; and that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and didn’t know what the character of his discharge was until January 2000.  He claims to not understand why he received the characterization of service he did since he was never in trouble with the military and believes the discharge is an error.  The applicant has provided a copy of his social security card in support of his application.  

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

On 1 October 1974, he enlisted in the USAR for 6 years.  The SSN listed on the Department of Defense (DOD) Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) and all associated documents prepared at the time of the applicant’s enlistment contain a 2 as the third digit of his SSN.  

On 1 November 1974, he entered active duty at Fort Jackson, South Carolina to complete his initial active duty for training (IADT).  All records prepared at the Fort Jackson reception station, to include his qualification record, indicate that the third digit of his SSN was 2.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).  Upon his released from active duty (REFRAD) he was reassigned to his Ready Reserve unit, the 376th Transportation Company at Fort Rucker, Alabama, to complete his USAR service.

On 21 November 1978, a notice of unsatisfactory participation and right to appeal form was signed by both the applicant and his unit commander.  This document informed the applicant that, based on his unexcused absences, a request was being made that he be involuntarily ordered to active duty.  The applicant was advised of his right to request discharge and of his right to appeal the action if he thought the decision was erroneous or in error.  He was given 15 days to submit either or both of these appeal actions.  

On 15 December 1978, the applicant’s USAR unit commander requested active 
duty orders be issued to the applicant based on his unsatisfactory participation in 
USAR unit training assemblies.  On 22 June 1979, Orders Number 111-12, 
issued by Headquarters, 1st United States Army, Fort Meade, Maryland, ordered 
the applicant to active duty at Fort Jackson, South Carolina for 18 months and 
5 days.  This order established his reporting date to active duty as 13 August 
1979.  

The evidence or record shows that the applicant’s  failure to report for active 
duty, on 13 August 1979, resulted in his being placed in an AWOL status.  On 
11 September 1979, he was dropped from the rolls of his organization.  He 
remained AWOL until 28 January 1980, when he was apprehended by civil 
authorities in Dothan, Alabama and returned to military control.

On 4 February 1980, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a 
court-martial charge against the applicant for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ, 
for the AWOL period outlined in the proceeding paragraph.  The record also 
contains documented evidence that on 14 February 1980, the applicant 
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions 
of chapter 10 of AR 635-200.  

The applicant’s request for administrative separation, in lieu of trial by 
court-martial, was made only after he had consulted with legal counsel and had been advised by counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge.  He acknowledged his guilt of the charge against him or of a lesser charge which authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge.  In addition, he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation because he had no desire to perform further military service.  

In his request for discharge, the applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law. 

On 27 February 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for separation, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade in conjunction with his separation.  Accordingly, on 
12 March 1980, the applicant was separated after completing 1 month and 
15 days of active military service on his current period of active duty and having had accrued 168 days of time lost due to AWOL.

There is no evidence of record to indicate that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.  

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.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions of the regulation.

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 Board considered the applicant’s request for correction to his SSN.  However, for historical purposes, the Army has an interest maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  The military records properly reflect the SSN under which the applicant performed his military service.  Therefore, the Board determined a change to the SSN contained in the record would be inappropriate at this time.  

2.  The Board does wish to advise the applicant that this decisional document will be permanently filed in his official military personnel file for clarity purposes.  This will serve to explain any future questions in regard to his correct SSN, both at the time of his service as reflected in his record and currently as documented by his social security card. 

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.  It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally UOTHC and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

4.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  In addition, the Board found the character of the applicant’s discharge was commensurate with his overall record of military service.  Therefore, the Board concluded an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is not warranted.  

5.  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.

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

__cmf ___  ___fe ___  ___rjw __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035940	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1980/03/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  10	100.0900	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.