MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048932

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the issues were too harsh and he would like to have his Army discharge changed from other than honorable to an honorable discharge.  The applicant submits four letters of reference in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 October 1979 for a period of three years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas as a small arms repairer.  He was promoted to private first class in September 1980.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 January 1981 through 1 May 1981.

On 8 May 1981, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 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 that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if an UOTHC discharge were issued.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 26 May 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1981 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 1 year, 3 months, and 25 days of creditable service and 114 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 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.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention that the issues surrounding his discharge were too harsh, evidence of record shows he was AWOL for 114 days. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all 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

RVO_____  TSK_____  SK______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048932	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010222 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810611	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Administrative Discharge-Conduct Triable by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.