MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 January 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048611

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That since his discharge in 1984 he has become a productive citizen.  He knows that his behavior while in the Army was unacceptable; however, he was young and made a lot of decisions that he now regrets.  He has been married for 12 years and has a beautiful daughter that he adopted two years ago.  He has been employed as a chemical operator for five years and is an active member in his church.  He contends that if he were ever called upon again to serve his country he would do so without reservation.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation dated 7 August 2000 and a character reference letter from his pastor dated 25 August 2000.    

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

The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 13 January 1982 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training on 28 January 1982 and was released from active duty on 1 June 1982 to complete his remaining USAR obligation.  On 14 December 1982 the applicant reenlisted in the USAR under the delayed entry program and enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1983 for a period of 
3 years.  He successfully completed training and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for duty as a cook.   

On 19 July 1983 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being drunk on duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.

On 8 February 1984 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of pay and restriction and extra duty.
 
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 February 1984 for being AWOL (2 days), being drunk on duty, altering a public record and being incapacitated for duty as a result of alcohol indulgence.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 28 February 1984, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 2 March 1984 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 March 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year and 6 months of total active service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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 contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 22 years of age at the time when he executed his voluntary request for discharge.   

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  While the applicant’s post service conduct has been positive, it is not sufficient to warrant upgrade of his discharge in view of the seriousness of his offenses.

2.  His 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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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.

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

EMW___  AMC_____  DPH____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048611	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010111	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840308	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.