MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            19 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040553

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante 		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge is unjust.  He states that steroid use was rampant in his unit.  He reported this to the Inspector General, but he was not believed.  He then became the target of reprisals from his squad leader and platoon leader.  In order to gain credibility, he took steroids and tested positive on random urinalysis tests.  He sought to get out of the Army based on the premise that he could earn more money in civilian life than in the military.  He was told it would take 3-4 months to get out for that reason.  An Army lawyer advised him to go AWOL (absent without leave) for more than 30 days, then turn himself in and he would be given not less than a general discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  As stated above.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 12 October 1995.  Following completion of One-Station Unit Training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman) and transferred to Fort Hood, Texas.

The applicant arrived at Fort Hood on/about 9 February 1996 and was assigned to the 52nd Infantry Regiment.  On 17 October 1996, he departed his unit in an AWOL status.  He returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky on 29 November 1996 and was placed in the Personnel Control Facility pending court-martial charges.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 3 December 1996. On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR (Army Regulation) 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense and acknowledged that he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The Personnel Control Facility commander recommended approval of a UOTHC discharge.  On 6 February 1997, the separation authority approved the discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

On 10 April 1997, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge, under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of discharge, the applicant had 1 year, 4 months, and 17 days on his current enlistment and 43 days lost time.

The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB considered his case on 17 March 2000 and denied his request.

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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOHC 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.  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 this requirement.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, he admitted guilt to the offenses, or a lesser included offense.  Further, he stated that he understood that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.

3.  The record does not substantiate the applicant's contention that he was the subject of reprisals for reporting steroid use in his unit to the Fort Hood Inspector General.  Further, the Board finds it incredible that a Judge Advocate General Corps officer would counsel the applicant to go AWOL.

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:

________  ________  ________ GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __jpi_____  __rks ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040553	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000919	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970410	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.