MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 December 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047355

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 at the time of his discharge, he had spent 30 days in the stockade and was given nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for allegedly taking a military vehicle without permission.  He contends that he was assigned to the fire department, was assigned to recover shell casings, and had actually signed for the vehicle.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 26 February 1971 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his basic combat training and advanced individual training as a firefighter (51M).  After training he was assigned to Fort Richardson, Alaska.  He attained the rank and pay grade of private first class (E-3).

On 23 March 1972 the applicant received NJP under the provisions of Article   15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disorderly in station.  The punishment included a reduction to private (E-2) (suspended for 60 days), and  14 days extra duty and restriction to the fire station.

On 24 July 1972 the applicant received NJP for not shaving prior to morning formation.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $15.00.

On 10 August 1972 the applicant received NJP for breaking restriction and for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $75.00.

On 8 January 1973 the applicant received NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed. The punishment included reduction to private (E-1) (suspended for 30 days), a forfeiture of $60.00, and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 29 March 1973 the applicant received NJP for failure to obey a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed.  The punishment included reduction to private (E-1), a forfeiture of $55.00. and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 16 May 1973 the applicant received NJP for being disrespectful in language towards two noncommissioned officers.  The punishment included 10 days extra duty and restriction.

On 1 June 1973 the applicant received NJP for failure to repair, failure to obey a lawful order, failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, and to go from his appointed place of duty.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 2 months, and 30 days extra duty and restriction.

On 13 June 1973 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of going from his appointed place of duty, failing to obey a lawful order, being disrespectful in language, and for wrongfully communicating a threat.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 4 months, and to confinement at hard labor for 3 months.  The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for the confinement at hard labor for 20 days.

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge and his separation orders, show that he was administratively discharged on 3 July 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.  He completed 2 years,        4 months and 22 days of creditable active service and had 3 days lost time.

On 20 September 1977 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge.  He had submitted his request under the provisions of a special review program for soldiers separated between           4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  The ADRB denied his request because he was not discharged during the prescribed review period.

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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.  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.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was discharged because he misappropriated Army property is not supported by the evidence of record.  Furthermore, he has not provided any substantiating evidence to support his contention.

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

__ JPH__  __ RJW__  __ KLW _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047355	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC,	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730703	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, Chpt 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Svc	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.