MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049746

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is a born again Christian and God has forgiven him for going absent without leave (AWOL).  He further states that he now has to try to forgive himself because no matter what other people decide he will always know that he quit and he humbly asks for the Board’s forgiveness.  He states that he wishes that he could change what he did; however, he cannot and if the Board has mercy he will have a piece of paper that helps him to feel a little better about the terrible mistake that he made.

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

On 20 July 1978, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a field artillery surveyor and was transferred to Germany on 11 November 1978.

On 5 June 1980, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 15 January until 30 May 1980.  He was notified of the charges pending against him on 6 June 1980 and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 19 June 1980.  Accordingly, on 17 July 1980, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, 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 completed 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of total active service and he had 136 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, his 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, the punitive discharge, and the felony conviction that he might have received.  Although he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

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

__js ____  __cjp____  ____le __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049746	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800717	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.