MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            29 June 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042938

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  He feels the punishment was "harsh, considering [his] good service and the awards [he] received."  He indicates that he would like his discharge upgraded so that he can reenlist.

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

He entered active duty on 18 September 1979 at the age of 18 and served successfully as an artilleryman in a variety of organizations until September 1989.  He was promoted to pay grade E-6 on 23 December 1985.  

The applicant's records indicate that during his military service he was awarded, among other things, three Army Commendation Medals, three Army Achievement Medals and an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for service in Grenada.

His records indicate that he was confined by civilian authorities from 
5 September 1989 through 26 January 1990, although the basis for that confinement is not a matter of record.  

On 29 January 1990 the applicant departed AWOL and on 14 September 1991 was apprehended by civilian authorities in Charleston, South Carolina for "forgery and driving under the influence" which was a violation of his probation.  He was confined, appeared in civilian court on 16 October 1991 and was sentenced to six months confinement.  On 31 December 1991 the applicant was released from civilian confinement and returned to military authorities.

On 10 January 1992, when charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge, which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

The separation authority approved the request and directed that an under other than honorable conditions discharge be issued.  On 2 March 1992 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with an RE Code of 3.  He had 10 years, 1 month, and 20 days creditable service and more than 800 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 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.  

On 18 June 1999 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

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 records indicate that he was 28 years old and a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) at the time of his initial civilian confinement.  He has offered no explanation which would serve as a basis to excuse the conduct which ultimately resulted in his voluntary request for separation in order to avoid trial by court-martial.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation and issuance of an RE Code of 3 were accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  His awards, while noteworthy, do not serve as a basis to justify the relief he requests.

3.  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

___jhl__  ___jns__  __mhm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042938	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.