MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           30 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059587

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 General Discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is terminally ill with hepatitis and cannot breathe.  He claims that he contracted hepatitis in the military, as did two of four friends who enlisted with him under the "buddy plan."  He adds that he needs Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 24 August 1972, was trained as a track vehicle mechanic, and was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas.

The applicant went AWOL (absent without leave) from his unit at Fort Riley on or about 13 May 1974 and remained absent until he returned to military control at Fort Sill, Oklahoma on 19 September 1974.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 19 September 1974.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  He was advised that the characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally UOTHC.

On 20 September 1974, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination.  He was found to be in good health and it is noted that he did not have hepatitis.

On 3 October 1974, the approving authority approved the applicant's separation and directed issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  He was separated on 8 October 1974.  He had 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days of creditable service and 128 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant did not petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within that agency's 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  Army policy states that 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.  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 had a lengthy period of AWOL.  When he returned to military control, court-martial charges were preferred against him.  His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received. 

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits (to include VA medical benefits) does not fall within the purview of the Board.  Furthermore, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of qualifying for benefits.  The applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance regarding that agency.

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

_CLA ___  ___AAO_  ___HBO _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059587	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011030	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19741008	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.