MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            29 November 2001                        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062418

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 recharacterized to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told his discharge would be changed to a general under honorable conditions discharge after six months.  In support of his application, he submits two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 29 October 1966 for a period of three years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and served in Germany as a field wireman.  He was honorably discharged on 1 July 1969 for immediate reenlistment.  He served another tour in Germany and was honorably discharged on 29 November 1970 for immediate reenlistment.  He served in Vietnam and was advanced to the rank of sergeant in November 1970.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on four separate occasions between March 1970 and October 1972 for being absent from his place of duty, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and for violating a lawful general regulation.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 October 1972 for seven specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL for three days, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer, and for failing to obey a lawful order issued by his unit commander.

On 24 October 1972, the applicant consulted with legal 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 offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant submitted statements in his own behalf.  

Prior to his discharge, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and a mental status evaluation and was found fit for separation.

On 24 November 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

The applicant was discharged on 29 November 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 1 year, 11 months and 25 days of creditable service on his current enlistment with 4 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He completed 6 years and 26 days total active military service.

On 12 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  

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 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.

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in 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 Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was advised that his discharge would be upgraded to general in six months.  However, there is no policy or regulation within the Army which allows automatic upgrading of discharges.  

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 of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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.

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

RVO____  JPI_____  WDP_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062418	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19721129	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.