MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041969

	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:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, 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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he wished he had waited a couple of years before enlisting because he did not mature until the age of 19.  He also states that he is now married, has attended college, and is able to understand things better.  He further states that he was a mama’s boy.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a copy of his certificate for Associate of Science in Business.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 18 November 1982 as a cargo specialist.

Between November 1983 and February 1984, the applicant was punished twice
under Article 15, (UCMJ), for failure to go to his prescribed place of duty and for concealing private stolen property.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and 14 days extra duty.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 13 April to 
12 December 1984 (244 days).

On 19 December 1984, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 January 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1985.  He had a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of creditable service and 244 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within 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 at any time after the charges
have been preferred submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 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.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  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 almost 21 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.

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

__ew___  __dh______  __ac___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041969	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850130	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.