MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 February 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001062582

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 conditions other than honorable discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he wishes to have his discharge upgraded so that he may go to school to better himself.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 1977, for a period of three years, at age of 18, with 10 years of education, for training as a military policeman.

On 11 May 1977, the applicant departed absent without leave.

On 28 July 1977, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for absent without leave from 11 May 1977 to 26 July 1977.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in the request that he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He indicated that he also understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he may be deprived of many or all Army, Veterans Affairs, and Federal and State benefits.  He acknowledged by his signature that he had consulted with counsel who had fully advised him in this matter.  The applicant declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 18 August 1977, and directed that an Under Other Than honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate be issued.

Accordingly, he was discharged on 1 September 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.

On 12 February 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of        AR 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 applicant provided no information concerning the circumstances that led to his discharge or information concerning post service achievements that would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.  Additionally, the Board does not upgrade discharges merely to qualify an applicant for a benefit or program.

3.  It appears that the applicant elected to take the option of requesting an administrative discharge rather than risking the possibility of a greater sentence at trial.  There is no evidence to show that he was coerced by anyone into making this choice.

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

___jtm__  ___rvo  __  ___cla__ _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200162582	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020228	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  110.02		
2.   		
3.   		
4.		
5.		
6.