MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 October 2001                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061290

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that because he was very young and unsure of what he wanted in life, he believes that the narrative reason for separation should not be “In Lieu of court-martial”.  He also believes that the date of time lost should also be eliminated.  The applicant further states, that he now has a family and is trying to purchase a home.  He also believes that those items affected or may have affected his job opportunities. 

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

On 13 April 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15E10 (Pershing Missile Crewmember).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 10 July 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 to 26 May 1994 and for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended until 1 December 1984), a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, 30 days restriction and extra duty. 

On 17 August 1984, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for two occasions of being AWOL from 25 June to 2 July 1984 and from 28 to 
30 July 1984, for breaking restriction and for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $285.00 pay per month for 2 month, 45 day restrictions and extra duty.   

On 21 November 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of being AWOL from 24 August to 2 September 1984 and from 3 September until on or about 20 November 1984.

On the same day, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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.  The applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was also admitting that he was guilty of the charges against him. The applicant 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 also acknowledged and understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so. 
A Report of Medical Examination found the applicant fit for retention.

On 20 December 1984, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 31 December 1984, 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 under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 29 days of creditable active military service. 

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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions 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'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.  

3.  There is no indication that his request for discharge was made under coercion or duress.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because the type of discharge he received; and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  

4.  The applicant states, that because he was young and unsure of what he wanted in life, the narrative reason for separation should not state “In lieu of court-martial” and his dates of lost time should be eliminated from his discharge papers.  However, this Board believes that applicant's contentions, that he was young and unsure of what he wanted in life is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__fne___  __mhm___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061290	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011018	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841231	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.