MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           28 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041803

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman 		Member	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		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 general, under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and addicted to drugs; that he is now a recovering addict; and that he has been drug free for the last 5 years. He further states he is sorry for his misconduct.

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

On 18 May 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.  He enlisted for the US Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option-Nike Hercules Missile Launcher Mechanic.  He successfully completed both basic combat and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Upon completion of AIT he was assigned to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama for additional military occupational specialty training.  

On 7 November 1977, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.

On 20 December 1977, the applicant accepted an NJP for twice failing to obey an order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $85.00 pay.

On 21 December 1977, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia.  

Between 4 and 15 January 1978, the applicant accumulated 10 specifications of issuing bad checks with the intent to defraud to the sum of $1,262.82.

On 7 February 1978, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8-15 January 1978, failing to obey a lawful order, and stealing 26 albums.

On 16 February 1978, the applicant left his unit in an AWOL status.  On 24 February 1978, the applicant was apprehended in San Francisco, California, and was returned to military control.

On 24 February 1978, the applicant was placed in pretrial confinement at the Naval Correctional Center, Treasure Island, California.

On 1 March 1978, additional charges were brought against the applicant.  He was charged with being AWOL from his unit from 16-24 February 1978 and wrongfully possessing marijuana on two separate occasions.

On 13 March 1978, the applicant requested discharge under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 March 1978, the unit and intermediate commanders recommended disapproval of the applicant’s chapter 10 request.

On 23 March 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, on 18 May 1978, the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 26 days of active military service and accruing 41 days of lost time.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he was young and addicted to alcohol and drugs at the time of his misconduct, and that he is now a recovering addict.  The Board commends the applicant on his success in overcoming his alcohol and drug addiction.  However, the Board concluded that the applicant had other legitimate avenues available to him without committing the misconduct that led to his discharge.

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s youth, post service accomplishments, and his letter submitted with his application; however, they did not mitigate the misconduct in the service record.

3.  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.

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___  __dph___  __emw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041803	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000928	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780518	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A9301.000.144	
2.	A9439.000.144	
3.	A9221.000.144	
4.		
5.		
6.