MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050212

	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	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his commanding general told him his discharge could be upgraded and did not say anything about a 15-year statute of limitations.  He feels that he deserves to have his discharge upgraded and that the Board should grant his request since the commanding general promised.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 31 October 1972 for 2 years.   He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned for duty as a clerk (71B).

On 7 June 1973 the applicant was charged with violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (two specifications) from 25 April to 18 May 1973, and from 29 May to 7 June 1973.

On 11 June 1973 the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged from the Army for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged the possible effects of receiving an other than honorable discharge, and elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he had received nonjudicial punishment ten times during his 7 months in the Army and was tired of doing everyone’s clean up work and not learning a trade he could use to get a job.

On 18 July 1973 the appropriate authority approved the request and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge 

Accordingly, he was so discharged on 18 July 1973.  He completed 7 months and 22 days of creditable active service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied for an upgrade of his discharge 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 type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state “No factors shall be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.”

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

__WTM__  __TFB       __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050212	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010403	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730718	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.