MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049649

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his record during his 18 months of service stands for itself and, in effect, justifies the upgrading of his discharge.  He went to Fort Knox, KY at his own expense to be discharged.  He did not fully understand what he requested.  He is trying to improve himself so he and his family can have a better future.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 February 1982.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He was assigned to Fort Ord, CA.  

The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 2 March 1983.  He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, KY on 25 April 1983.  

On 26 April 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 2 March to on or about 25 April 1983.

The applicant waived a separation physical.

On or about 29 April 1983, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation     635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

On 27 July 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 16 August 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed        1 year, 4 months and 23 days of creditable active service and had 54 days of lost time.

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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 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.

2.  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.  He signed the request acknowledging that he was admitting guilt to an offense for which the punishment could have been a punitive discharge.  He acknowledged that he was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant made no statement in his behalf when he requested discharge and he provides no explanation as to why he went AWOL and no evidence that would justify upgrading his discharge now. The Board notes that there is no evidence of other disciplinary action in his records; however, neither do they show that his service was so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.  The Board also concludes that his record of 54 days AWOL time does not make his record sufficiently satisfactory as to warrant an upgrade to a general discharge.

4.  The Board understands the applicant’s desire to want a better future for himself and his family; however, that is insufficient reason to grant the relief requested.

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

__fne___  __mhm___  __mkp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049649	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830816	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.