MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046153

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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:  That he was informed on 12 July 1978, the date of his discharge, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions would be upgraded to honorable.  He also states that he has now been informed that he must submit a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 18 April 1977 as a supply clerk.

On 16 November 1977, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 27 August 1977 to 7 November 1977 (73 days).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, 45 days extra duty, and 60 days restriction.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 9 December 1977 to 22 May 1978 (165 days).

On 2 June 1978, 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 29 June 1978, 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 12 July 1978. He had a total of 6 months, and 27 days of creditable service and 238 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention: however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  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.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were 
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

4.  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.

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

__fe___  ___mm_____  __mp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046153	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780712	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C.10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189/360		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.