MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048742

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine 		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley 		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 general.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded to general.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty); a Criminal History Record provided by the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office in South Carolina; and four character reference letters from a friend, his two daughters and his pastor.   

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

The applicant enlisted on 15 June 1973 for a period of 3 years.  He served as a field artillery crewman and was honorably discharged on 10 June 1976.  He reenlisted on 11 June 1976 for a period of 5 years.  The applicant was transferred to Germany on 9 July 1977 for duty as a cannon crewman.

While in Germany, between 11 July 1978 and 3 July 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on three separate occasions for being AWOL from 4 June 1978 to 7 June 1978, being drunk and disorderly in command and for being incapacitated for duty as a result of a previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor.   

The applicant was transferred back to the United States on 15 September 1979.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 17 September 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 6 years and 3 months of total active service with
3 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows 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 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s character reference letters and documentation regarding his post service achievements and conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge. 

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

RVO____  TSK____  SK______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048742	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790917	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.