MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041566

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature;  that he became a father at age 17 and received his General Equivalency Diploma (GED) at 17; that he joined the Army at 19, but did not yet know what life was about.  He provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), a copy of his SF 85 (Report of Medical Examination) for his enlistment, a copy of DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record, Part I), and a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record, Part II).

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

He was born on 23 December 1959 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 25 July 1979; at the time, he was 19 years of age and he enlisted for the combat arms enlistment option and duty in Europe.  Following completion of One Station Unit Training (OSUT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, he was placed on orders for Germany.

On 2 October 1979, the applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and remained absent until 11 January 1980 when he returned to military control.  On 2 February 1980, he again went AWOL and remained absent until apprehended by civil authorities in Dallas, Texas on 13 May 1980.

Complete documentation is not in the applicant's file; however court-martial charges were preferred against him for the two periods of AWOL.  He consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, the applicant would have been required to admit, in writing, guilt to the offenses, or lesser-included offenses.  Further, the applicant would have had to state 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.  On an unknown date, the separation authority approved the discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

On 8 July 1980, 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 just 4 months and 21 days of creditable service and 171 days lost time.

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 a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The requests 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

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

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 applicant's contention that he was young and immature 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 enlistment and that he met all enlistment qualification standards, to include age; there is no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  Furthermore, his request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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

__rvo____  __jpi___  __ewl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041566	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800708	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.