MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 July 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057622

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was in Germany on Reforger and accused of burglary of a store.  Major General W___ of the 101st Airborne Division believed he was innocent; the German police did not, so General W___ chapter 10d him and flew him back to the States.  He had a very good record until this incident.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1975.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).  

On 12 September 1976, the applicant was arrested by the German police for breaking a display window, taking two cameras from inside the window, and fleeing the scene.  The military police report there were two witnesses to the act. Two military police patrolling the town noticed the German police handcuff the applicant.  They went over to investigate and were informed by the German police of the alleged incident.  They noticed glass fragments in the applicant’s hair and on his jacket.  The applicant was later released to these two military police and taken to the military police station.

The charge sheet and discharge packet are not available.

On 23 September 1975, Brigadier General H___, Acting Commander, 101st Airborne Division approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 6 October 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 8 October 1976, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year and 7days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

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; however, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge. 

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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The Board does not find it credible that if Major General W___ had believed the applicant to be innocent he would have approved (or allowed to be approved) the applicant’s receiving a discharge UOTHC.  The applicant does not provide the discharge packet or any other evidence to support this contention.

3.  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___  __mvt___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057622	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010724	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761008	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.