MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001052962

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley Powell		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 marriage problems caused a set back in his short career.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 17 July 1980.  He was trained as a carpenter and continued his service through a reenlistment.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 effective 5 June 1983.

On 5 February 1985 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for driving while drunk.  His punishment included a suspended one-grade reduction and a forfeiture of pay.  On 14 March 1985 he was issued a general officer Letter of Reprimand for driving while intoxicated.  On 31 October 1986 a local bar to reenlistment was imposed.  The basis was his flagrant disregard to pay his just debts and inability to manage his personal affairs.

On 5 February 1987 the applicant was punished again under Article 15, UCMJ for issuing bad checks.  The punishment imposed included reduction to the pay grade of E-4.  He departed AWOL on 5 March 1987 and remained absent until 6 April 1987.  On 8 April 1987 charges were preferred for the AWOL offense.

On 8 April 1987, after consulting with counsel, he requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense charged and could be issued a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of trial by court-martial.  He also acknowledged that he might be deprived of many or all benefits under Federal and state law.  The separation authority approved the request and directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and separation under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was discharged effective 27 May 1987 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 3 years, 4 months, and 24 days creditable service and 32 days lost time.

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 7 February 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his 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, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  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.

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

___sp__  ___rs____  __ji____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001052962	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.