MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 July 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055696

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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:  In effect, that he be reinstated back in the Army in pay grade E-6.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the United States (US) Government framed him and violated his civil rights.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) case report and directive, dated 
28 February 2001.

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

The applicant entered the Army on 1 July 1986 and upon completion of training was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92R (Parachute Rigger).  The highest rank he attained was sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E5) and he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Army Achievement (1st OLC), Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), and National Defense Service Medal.

In October 1997, while the applicant was serving in Korea, court-martial charges were preferred against him for housebreaking, indecent assault, and disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer.  After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of his rights, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request to be administratively discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
19 December 1997, the applicant was discharged from the Army, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of his discharge he had completed a total of 11 years, 5 months, and 19 days of active military service. 

The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge and on 
9 March 2000, the ADRB granted partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of the applicant’s service to general, under honorable conditions, which resulted in a restoration of his rank to SGT/E-5.  However, the ADRB determined that the reason for the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed 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.  This request may be submitted at any time after charges are preferred and must include an admission of guilt by the individual.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 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.

2.  The ADRB granted partial relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions and restored his rank back to sergeant.  Also, the ADRB determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  The Boards concurs with these findings.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable and to restore him back in the Army.

4.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s discharge.

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__  __ MVT __  __WDP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055696	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/07/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.