MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001054482

	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. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was held accountable for his military clothing and equipment after he departed AWOL.  None of his personal property was returned to him either.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 9 February 1989.  He completed training as a helicopter repairer, served in Panama, and was reassigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 14 September 1990.  He had been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 1 December 1989.

Effective 12 August 1991 the applicant was AWOL.  He was returned to military control on 15 May 1992 after civil authorities apprehended him.  On 5 June 1992, charges were preferred for the AWOL offense.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he was guilty of the offense and could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge as a result of trial by court-martial.

An interview sheet in the applicant’s records stated that he went AWOL because of stress, family, and financial problems.  He also stated that he discussed his problems with his chain of command.  There are no counseling statements in the available record.

The applicant submitted a memorandum to the brigade commander requesting a general discharge.  The memorandum explained his family problems with his former wife and the care of his sister by his alcoholic father.

The separation authority approved the request and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  Effective 19 February 1993, the applicant was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 3 years, 3 months, and 8 days creditable service and 277 days lost time.

On 14 March 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge noting that it was both proper and equitable given all the facts of the case.

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.

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 request for 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.

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

__jh___  ___ho___  __ca______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054482	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930219	
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.