MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            20 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042939

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was based on one isolated incident of being AWOL and that he had an otherwise exemplary record of service.  He goes on to state that he was under duress at the time because his girlfriend was unstable and he decided to stay with her; however, he does not know where she is now.  He further states that he has had no arrests or convictions except traffic violations, that he is married with three children, and that he injured himself on the job and needs an upgrade of his discharge in order to secure employment that will allow him to earn the same amount he earned before he was injured. 

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

He served on active duty from 28 November 1984 until he was honorably released from active duty on 27 November 1987 due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He was transferred to the USAR to complete his statutory service obligation and remained in the USAR until he again enlisted in the Regular Army in the pay grade of E-4 on 4 May 1989, for a period of 4 years and assignment to Europe.

He was transferred to Germany on 16 May 1989 for duty in the military occupational specialty of a medical specialist (91A).

He went AWOL on 27 February 1990 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at McDill Air Force Base, Florida on 17 April 1990 and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky; where charges were preferred against him.

After consulting with counsel on 23 April 1990, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person and that he was guilty of the charges against him.  He also indicated that he understood the implications associated with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 4 June 1990 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. 

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 11 July 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year and 18 days of active service during his current enlistment and had 45 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 19 August 1999 for an upgrade of his discharge contending that his overall record of service was not properly considered in determining the type of discharge he should have received.  The ADRB after reviewing the evidence of record and the available facts of the case, determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  It appears that the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charges against him and his otherwise undistinguished record of service. 

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his rank and service, the offense for which he was charged, and the overall facts of his case.  Furthermore, the desire to increase one’s employment opportunities is not a basis to upgrade a duly constituted discharge.

5.  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

__ja ____  ___ewl__  ___vbc __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042939	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/06/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/07/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.