MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           28 August 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053956

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		                         Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He felt helpless in front of the high-ranking officers who were presiding over his discharge process.  He had no defense for his actions and no defense was offered in his behalf by the Government.  He continues that he was never told what type of discharge he would receive if he requested discharge, and contends that he would have stayed in the Army if he had known he would receive anything less than an honorable discharge.

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

He enlisted on 8 August 1977, was awarded the military occupational specialty of cook, and was promoted to pay grade E-2.

On 14 April 1978 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 18 February to 11 April 1978.

On 17 April 1978 the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service.  In that request he admitted guilt to the court-martial charge preferred against him, and acknowledged that “. . . under no circumstances do I desire further rehabilitation, for I have no desire to perform further military service . . . I understand that, if my request for discharge is accepted, I may be discharged under other than honorable conditions . . .”  The applicant did submit matters of mitigation to the court-martial convening authority in a letter in which he stated that his girlfriend was very sick and could die anytime.  He believed that his place was with her during her illness.

The applicant’s request for discharge was accepted and he was issued an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate on 27 June 1978.  He had 8 months and 28 days of creditable service and 51 days of lost time.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  There was no requirement or reason for the Army to provide the applicant any defense.  He had admitted guilt to the offense in order to request an administrative discharge.  The Army would only have been required to provide the applicant a defense counsel if his request for discharge had been rejected and he was referred to trial by court-martial.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was never told what type of discharge he would receive if he requested discharge is contradicted by his signature on his request for discharge which plainly tells him that he could receive an under other than honorable discharge.
3.  The applicant was AWOL almost 2 months, an offense which would warrant a punitive discharge under the UCMJ.  While the applicant had made a statement at the time that he had gone AWOL because of the illness of his girlfriend, he chose not to present that defense at a trial by court-martial wherein he could have been sentenced to time in confinement.  That he now regrets that choice is unfortunate.

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

___jns___  ____rtd__  ___dph__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010828	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.