MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  30 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046289

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That mitigating circumstances involving a beating he received prior to him going AWOL was not considered.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army as a private (PV1) on 23 April 1979.  He attained the rank of specialist four (E-4) effective 1 October 1980.

He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 31 December 1980 and dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 30 January 1981.

He remained absent until his surrender to military control on 17 November 1983.

On 7 December 1983, he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 31 December 1980 to 17 November 1983.  On the same day, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged he understood the possible effect of an UOTHC Discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge.

On 12 January 1984, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that an UOTHC discharge certificate be furnished.

On 19 January 1984 he was reduced in rank from E-4 to PV1.

He was separated on 25 January 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, “For the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial.”  He had a total of 1 year, 10 months and 12 days net active service.

His petition to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade was denied on 24 January 1994.

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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  His contention has been noted by the Board; however, it is not sufficiently supported by his records or his application.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s allegation has not been substantiated and does not serve as mitigation in his case. 

3.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

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

__js___  __tl_____  __ca______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046289	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.