MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           4 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061469

	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. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was under a lot of pressure because, after being trained in a Signal Corps military occupational specialty (MOS), he spent 3 years doing other work.  When he was finally assigned in his MOS, he couldn't do the job.  His platoon sergeant and first sergeant constantly picked on him, so he went AWOL (absent without leave) in desperation.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 22 February 1979.  Following one station unit training (OSUT), he was awarded MOS 72E (Telecommunication Center Operator) and sent to basic airborne training at Fort Benning, Georgia, followed by his first duty assignment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He arrived at Fort Bragg on 8 September 1979 and worked in MOS 75D (Personnel Records Assistant).

The applicant departed Fort Bragg for Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, and training in MOS 35G (Biomedical Equipment Repairman).  He was dropped from the course for academic deficiencies and sent back to Fort Bragg in September 1982.

Back at Fort Bragg, the applicant was assigned duties in his original MOS, 72E.  On 30 October 1983, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL.  On 8 December 1983, he received a second NJP for AWOL.  On 4 January 1984, he was administered a bar to reenlistment.  On 27 February 1984, he went AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Bragg on 6 June 1984.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant and he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although the applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning his request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.

On 10 August 1984, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  He had 5 years, 2 months, and 3 days of creditable service and 106 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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 discharge UOHC 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.  There is no evidence that his platoon sergeant and first sergeant were harassing the applicant.  However, even if true, there were other avenues available to the applicant to resolve his problems; he did not have to resort to going AWOL.  There is evidence that the applicant developed a history of going AWOL before the lengthy absence that resulted in court-martial charges being preferred against him.

3.  Although the applicant’s discharge proceedings were not a matter of record, the Board presumes Government regularity in that the discharge process was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

_JHL____  __MKP__  __ENA__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061469	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840810	
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.