MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            20 March 2001                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051392

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he returned stateside for approximately 
1 1/2 year and thereafter, received orders to return to Germany.

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

On 19 March 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with
3 years, 7 months and 18 days of prior honorable service.  His military occupational specialty was 11B10 (Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4. 

On 3 December 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for missing a movement and for being absent without leave from 30 September to 2 December 1975. 

On 5 December 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf.  He stated in effect, that he did not want to stay in the Army; that he did not want to be rehabilitated, that he knew that he would get an undesirable discharge, but he could live with it and that he waived the 72 hour waiting period. 

On 2 January 1976, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 21 January 1976, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 1 year and 8 months of creditable active service during this enlistment. 

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.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__fne___  __rjw___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051392	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010320	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760121	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.	144.7000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.