MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037345

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he was discharged from the Army he was told that he had full benefits.  He states, in effect, that the type of discharge he received was too severe considering the nature of his offense and that his age and mental depression should be taken into consideration.

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

On 18 March 1980, he enlisted in the Army at age 17 for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a hawk missile crewmember.  On 18 September 1980, he was promoted to the pay grade of 
E-2.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1981 and to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 September 1981.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 12 November 1981 for being AWOL from 7 November until 10 November 1981.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 3 March 1982, the applicant went AWOL and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 25 May 1982.

The applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  On 4 June 1982, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time that he submitted his request for discharge he acknowledged that he understood that he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits.  He also acknowledged that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 1 July 1982.  Accordingly, on 21 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 9 days of total active service and he had 48 days of lost time due to AWOL.

A review of the records fails to show that the applicant was suffering from mental depression while he was in the Army.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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.  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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.  The records clearly show that at the time he submitted his request for discharge he acknowledged that understood the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits.  He also acknowledged that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 19 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.  Additionally, there is no evidence of record that shows that he was suffering from mental depression while he was in the Army or that the type of discharge he received was too severe.

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

___gp___  ___mvt__  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037345	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/07/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.