MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	

	BOARD DATE:           26 July 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054182

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He knows he was wrong to stay away for more than his allowed time, and he did not know he had to file an appeal within a certain time.

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

He was enlisted in the Army as a private, pay grade E-1 on 15 March 1984 at age 20.  He was trained as a motor transport operator.

He attained the grade of private first class, pay grade E-3 on 17 February 1985.

On 20 May 1985 he was reported absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 20 June 1985.

On 6 August 1985, he surrendered to military authorities and on 7 August 1985 he was charged with one specification of AWOL for the period 20 May to 6 August 1985.

On the same date, after consulting with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he was aware of consequences of a discharge UOTHC and acknowledged he departed AWOL due to personal problems.  He further stated that his grandfather who raised him was stricken with an illness and paralyzed and he wanted a hardship discharge to get out of the Army to take care of him.  However, he felt the proceedings for a hardship discharge would take too long, so he went AWOL.  Upon his surrender he desired to be discharged from the United States Army.

On 28 August 1985, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and directed that an UOTHC discharge be furnished and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  

He was discharged on 11 September 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. He had a total of 1 year, 3 months and 11 days net active service, and 78 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 12 February 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board advised the applicant that his request was past the 15 year statute and he should request an appeal of his discharge to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge UOTHC 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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  His contention that he now knows he was wrong to stay away from the base longer than his allowed time has been noted by the Board; however, the applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.

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.

4.  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.

5.  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

_rvo____  __hof_____  __ena__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054182	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010726	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.