MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            8 January 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061142

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Terry L. Placek		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was in a fight with another soldier; however, no one was hurt, but he was placed in the stockade and he was later offered an undesirable discharge.  He was soldier of the month prior to the fight.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 5 December 1972, as a unit supply specialist.

On 9 May 1974, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for violation of a lawful general regulation and for signing an official document with intent to deceive.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 30 days restriction and extra duty.

On 26 May 1974, the applicant was arrested for indecent exposure and was confined in the Lawton City Jail, in Lawton, Oklahoma, until 28 May 1974 
(2 days).

On 15 July 1974, the applicant was confined by military authorities for assault with a dangerous weapon and for assault upon another soldier.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 16 July 1974, for the above assaults.

On 6 August 1974, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 9 August 1974, and was found qualified for separation.

On 27 August 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 30 August 1974.  He had a total of
1 year, 7 months, and 9 days of creditable service and had 48 days of lost time due to confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 8 August 2001.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations.  This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 8 August 2001.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
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.  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.  

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 this 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

_tlp____  _rwa____  _lls____       DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061142	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020108	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19740830	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR  635-200  C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.