MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 August 2001 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001052937

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was suffering from an untreated mental disorder; he was very young; and he was experiencing severe marital problems.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 16 September 1980 for the training of choice/cash bonus enlistment option for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 54E (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Specialist).  He was 23 years old at the time.

On 8 December 1980, while he was assigned to advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama, he received orders assigning him to Germany.  On 4 February 1981, he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AW0L) status.

Civilian authorities arrested him and confined him at the Tulare County Jail, Visalia, California on a concealed weapons charge.  On 18 December 1982, he was returned to the AWOL Apprehension Section, Fort Ord, California. 

On 5 January 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent from his unit at Fort McClellan from 4 February 1981-17 December 1982.

On 5 January 1983, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of chapter 10 and the effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The available records do not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.  

On 5 January 1983, the applicant was placed in a leave without pay status pending his discharge.

On 25 January 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge.  On 26 January 1983, his intermediate commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge.  On 31 January 1983, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC discharge.

On 8 February 1983, the applicant was separated in absentia with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 5 months, and 25 days of active military service and he had 683 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under 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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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 voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process.  He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both correct.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.  

5.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance with his personal problems without resorting to the misconduct that led to the separation action under review.

6.  There is no evidence that the applicant was ever diagnosed as having a mental disorder or that he needed treatment for a mental disorder when he was in the military.  He has provided no evidence to the contrary.

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

__jev____  __bje___  __wdb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001052937	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010830	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.