MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 March 2001     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000051119

	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. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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:  That the circumstances which led to his unfavorable discharge were not addressed at the time of his discharge.  He states, in effect, that his father was involved in a serious automobile accident in December 1988 which incapacitated him for over a year.  In February 1989 he realized that his family was in financial distress and he went to the unit chaplain for advice on requesting a “hardship leave” to help out at home.  He claims the chaplain told him that the chances were slim for a “hardship leave” because of the unit’s Division Ready Force status.  While home on leave in June 1989 he realized how financially desperate the situation had gotten for his family and he had to stay and help.  He turned himself in October 1989.  Since his discharge, he has maintained employment, taken college courses and performed community service.  He is currently employed by the National Park Service and needs his discharge upgraded to continue his service as a Law Enforcement Ranger.  In support of his application, he submits a letter from a Member of Congress dated 20 December 2000; an undated letter from the applicant; and a Table of Contents which describes the applicant’s 11 enclosures.           

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

The applicant entered active duty on 20 September 1988.  He successfully completed basic and airborne training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for duty as an infantryman.   

The applicant went AWOL on 23 June 1989 and returned to military control on 
3 October 1989.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 10 October 1989 for being AWOL.

On 10 October 1989, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.   
On 9 November 1989 the approval authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 November 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 11 months of total active service with 102 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 28 October 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to general.

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.  

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

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s claim of family financial problems which led to his decision to go AWOL.  However, these matters are not grounds for upgrading his discharge.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  

5.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to further his employment with the National Park Service as a Law Enforcement Ranger.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

6.  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.

7.  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

RWA____  ALR____  GJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000051119	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010327	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891129	
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.