MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           25 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058229

	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. Walter Avery		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served in the Army honorably and had it not been because of family hardship he would have made the Army a career.

He submits no documents or other evidence in support of his request.

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

He enlisted on 17 June 1971 for a period of two years, completed training as a supply clerk, was initially assigned to Germany and achieved the rank of private first class.

On 18 November 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for misconduct.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $62.00 per month for two months.

On 23 February 1972, he was promoted to private first class.

On 25 July 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 29 June to 8 July 1972.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months and extra duty for fourteen consecutive days.

On 17 February 1973, before a special court-martial, the applicant was found guilty of five charges, including: assault, destruction of property, breach of peace, insubordination and disrespect.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private, forfeiture of $178.00 for five months and confinement at hard labor for five months.  The convening authority approved the sentence, but suspended for a period of six months that portion adjudging confinement at hard labor in excess of three months and forfeitures of pay in excess of three months.

The applicant was ordered to the United States Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas on 11 March 1973 to begin serving his sentence.

On 10 May 1973, orders were issued transferring the applicant from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

The applicant was reported AWOL on 3 July 1973 and dropped from the rolls of his unit on 1 August 1973.  He was returned to military control on 19 September 1973. 

A copy of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 10 is not in his records. However, the authority and reason for his discharge indicates that he was separated under the authority of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  As is normal in such cases, he would have indicated in his request that he understood he could receive an UOTHC discharge and that he personally made the choice to submit the request for discharge. 

On 15 November 1973, the approved recommendation for elimination of the applicant was forwarded to the commander authorized to direct separation.

On 19 November 1973, orders were issued directing the applicant’s reduction to private, his separation and the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged with an UOTHC discharge on 26 November 1973 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He had served 1 year, 11 months, and 14 days of total active service.

The applicant’s available record contains no evaluations, awards or documents other than the disciplinary actions noted, to indicate the quality of his service.

AR 635-200 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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        AR 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 applicant provided no information or justification concerning the circumstances that led to his charges of AWOL.  He also provided no information of post service achievements or how the current discharge is adversely affecting him.

3.  The applicant’s records contain no evidence and he has provided no evidence to support his contention that he served honorably for 18 months.  The applicant could have chosen to present his argument before a court-martial, but instead, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service apparently in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the charges against him.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses of which he was convicted.

4.  It appears that the applicant elected to take the option of requesting an administrative discharge rather than risking the possibility of a greater sentence at trial.  There is no evidence to show that he was coerced by anyone into making this choice.

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

__kan__  __reb____  __rjw   ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056854	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011025	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.