MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035944

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 in order to receive education benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge is a hardship and that he is unable to receive education benefits.

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

He enlisted on 15 July 1974 as a light weapons infantryman.

On 7 March 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for two specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay. 

The applicant’s court-martial charges are unavailable for review.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 8 August 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 1 year and 24 days of creditable service.

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

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.  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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his under other than honorable conditions discharge is a hardship and that he is unable to receive education benefits.  While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges for the purpose of obtaining eligibility for benefits.
2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

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 the aforementioned 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:

EB______  JHK_____  BJE____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035944	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000613	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750808	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.