MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 July 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058208

	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 could not go before the board because he was incarcerated in the Escambia County Jail, Pensacola, FL.  He had requested a general discharge.  He was young and very irresponsible.  He could not adjust to military life.  Also, his son was born with spinal meningitis and he wanted to be at his side which was the reason he went absent without leave (AWOL).  Also, he was not in the Army for a complete 6 months.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He was born on 7 December 1955.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 April 1974.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63A (Mechanic Maintenance Helper).

On 14 August 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 1 – 26 July 1974.

The applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, KY on 6 September 1974.  He reported in civilian clothes and informed authorities that his baggage was in a locker in Indianapolis, IN.  He was given leave to get his clothes.  He did not return from leave and was reported AWOL from 17 September 1974 to 24 January 1975.  

The applicant had apparently been arrested by civil authorities while AWOL.  No details are available.

On 5 February 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 17 September 1974 to on or about 25 January 1975.

On 6 February 1975, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He did not specify the type of discharge he was requesting.  He was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.  He did sign a Voluntariness Statement in which he stated that the Army was “OK” but he wanted out and that he understood that he would receive a “U. D.” (an undesirable discharge ).

On 12 February 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  He noted on his Report of Medical History, Standard Form (SF) 93, that his health was good.

On 3 March 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 19 March 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 5 months and 20 days of creditable active service and had 155 days of 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, 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.  Chapter 2 provides that a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status (for Regular Army soldiers, entry level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty) unless a characterization of UOTHC is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case.

On 14 December 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.

2.  The applicant voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.  There were no board proceedings.  The evidence of record shows that he understood he would receive an undesirable, discharge UOTHC.  His discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s young age at the time of his enlistment.  However, the Board also recognizes that thousands of soldiers who enter the Army at 18 years of age go on to successfully complete their enlistments.  Considering the applicant’s record of service, it would not be equitable to upgrade his discharge.

4.  Regarding the applicant’s concern that he was not in the Army a complete 6 months, the Board presumes he is referring to the uncharacterized discharge normally given to soldiers with less than 180 days of continuous active duty.  That rule does not apply if the characterization of under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case.  The Board concludes that the exception to this rule applies in the applicant’s case.

5.  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	AR2001058208	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010724	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750319	
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.