MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            10 April 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001051293

	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:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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:  In effect, that his discharge be recharacterized to honorable.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 May 1974 and completed basic and advanced individual training.  He served in Germany from 13 September 1974 through 14 February 1975 as a supply clerk.  

On 21 January 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation and committing an assault on a specialist four.

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses 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 Veterans Administration (VA) if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 6 February 1975, the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.  The applicant was discharged on 15 February 1975 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 9 months and 14 days of creditable service.  

Prior to discharge, the applicant underwent a physical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge 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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable 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.  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 was advised of the effects of an undesirable discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case and there is no basis to upgrade his discharge.

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

SVW____  GDP____  JEA_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051293	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010410	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200.  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the Service-in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.