MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045118

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was wrong for leaving his duty station and putting himself in the status of being absent without leave (AWOL).  He further states that he had a spotless record before that incident.  An honorable discharge would give him full medical and military benefits.

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

On 17 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 61B (Watercraft Operator).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 20 July 1976, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 April to 15 July 1976.

On 20 July 1976, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted a statement in his behalf.  The applicant stated in effect, that he wanted to get out of the Army because he did not like it and if they did not release him from the Army he would go AWOL again.

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for separation.

On 21 October 1976, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 
On 4 November 1976, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 2 years, 6 months and 17 days of 
creditable active service and 104 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, 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 trail by court.  A discharge UOTHC 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.  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 voluntary request for separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trail 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.

3.  The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__jhl___  __clg___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045118	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000921	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761104	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635 200, chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.