MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            01 NOVEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058060

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 this discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  He made no statement to this Board.  However, in a statement to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), which first considered his request, he stated that after serving nine years in the Army his discharge under honorable conditions was unfair. 

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

A 9 July 1997 statement of service shows that the applicant had service in both the active and inactive Army Reserve in 1992 and 1993.  He completed active duty for training as a motor transport operator at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 19 August 1993.  He enlisted in the Army Reserve at Hofstra University at Hempstead, New York on 2 December 1995.  He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve on 23 May 1997 and attended OBC (officer basic course) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He completed training and in November was assigned to the 58th Signal Company in Germany.

On 1 September 1999 the applicant was charged with wrongfully possessing approximately 13 grams of hashish between 22 June and 24 July 1999.  The applicant voluntarily requested resignation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13.  He stated that he did not desire to appear before a court-martial or a board of officers.  He stated that he had not been subject to coercion with regard to his resignation and had been advised of and fully understood the implication of his action.  He stated that he had consulted with counsel prior to submitting his resignation and had been advised that he could consult with and be represented by counsel.  He stated that he had been afforded an opportunity to present matters in explanation, mitigation, or defense.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.

On 21 October 1999 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged under honorable conditions.  He was discharged on 5 November 1999 at Mannheim, Germany.  He had 2 years,         5 months, and 5 days of service.

On 10 October 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 3-13 provides the rules for processing resignation for the good of the service in lieu of a general court-martial and states that an officer may submit a resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court-martial when court-martial charges have been preferred against the officer with a view toward trial by general court-martial.  A resignation will be expeditiously forwarded to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) for action.  Separation instructions on approved cases will by issued by that command.  An officer separated under the provisions of paragraph 3-13 normally receives a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 

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 resignation under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, chapter 3, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. The character of his service was more than fair.  He could have received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

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 that 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

__WTM__  __AAO__  __CLG __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058060	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011101	
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.	110.00	
2.	360	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.