MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053868

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John E. Denning		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 be upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his medical and mental condition was the cause of his problems in the military.  In support of his application, he provides medical records, dated 1 February 1999, that show he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and various physical ailments.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 18 July 1978.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C, Motor Transport Operator, and transferred to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  He served at Fort Belvoir from October 1978 to April 1980 when he was transferred to Germany.  While at Fort Belvoir, he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 8 days.

The applicant served in Germany from April 1980 to July 1981 when he was returned to the United States and Fort Dix, New Jersey for separation.  On 22 June 1981, he 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.  Although specific charges are not in the applicant's file, there is documentation present to suggest that he was charged with blackmarket activities.  In any event, court-martial charges were preferred against him and, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  In so doing, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge(s) against him, charges that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also stated that he had no desire for rehabilitation or further military service, and that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and he was separated on 20 July 1981 with a UOTHC discharge. He had 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days of creditable service and 8 days of lost time due to AWOL.  There is nothing in the applicant's records to show that he was suffering a medical disease or mental defect.

The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 30 March 1983, denied his request.  The applicant appealed to this Board requesting an upgrade based on his contention that he did not commit the offense(s) charged against him.  On 20 January 1988, this Board denied the applicant's request of a discharge upgrade (AC86-06247).
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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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 current physical and mental condition is not applicable to his military service and provides no rationale for upgrading his discharge.  The applicant was physically and mentally qualified for enlistment in the Regular Army and performed his duties as a motor transport operator up to the point at which court-martial charges were preferred against him.  In the absence of service medical records to the contrary, the Board presumes that he was fit for duty at the time of separation.

3. 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.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, 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.

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 __  __JED__  ___TLP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053868	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19880120	
DATE BOARDED	20010913	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810720	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A75.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.