MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           15 January 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058081

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he returned to military control after being absent without leave (AWOL), he was given a choice to return to duty or to receive a discharge.  At the time of discharge, he was told that his discharge could be upgraded after he had been a member of his community for several years and he has met this requirement.  He also states that he was forced into going AWOL.  He is reliable and he has excelled in the workplace and in his personal life.  He also states that he previously applied for an upgrade of his discharge, but that his records were lost.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 23 April 1981 for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He completed basic and advanced individual training and on 27 July 1981 and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

On 8 February 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from his unit from 19-20 January 1982.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay and 21 days' confinement in the Correctional Custody Facility.  

The applicant went AWOL again on 8 February 1982 and remained absent until he returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Campbell on 9 July 1982.

On 14 July 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above period of AWOL.

On 19 July 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.   

The applicant’s unit commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 26 July 1982, the brigade commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 6 August 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation with a UOTHC discharge.

On 27 August 1982, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, with a UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by court-martial.  He had completed 11 months and 4 days of active military service. He also has 152 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  

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.

2.  The applicant was never offered a choice between return to duty or discharge. After court-martial charges were preferred against him, he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and a possible criminal conviction.  There is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process. 

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

4.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service, or the reason for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. 

5.  The Board took into consideration that the applicant has matured and become a productive citizen since being separated from active duty and commends the applicant for his accomplishments.  However, post-service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

6.  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

__INW___  ___HOF_  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058081	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820827	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.