MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066314

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  Since time has gone by, he was hoping he could get an upgrade.  The applicant does not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1974 for a period of 3 years.  

His records contain a Case Report and Directive (OSA Form 172) from the Army Discharge Review Board.  This report indicates that charges were preferred against the applicant on 11 February 1975 for violating a general regulation by wrongfully and unlawfully selling Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) to a private.  

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in his records.  However, his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) indicates that he was discharged on 17 March 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was issued an undesirable discharge.  He had 8 months and 25 days of creditable service with 3 days of lost time.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 9 June 1977 for an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny his request.

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. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 notes that the discharge processing papers are not in the applicant’s records.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The Board reviewed the ADRB proceedings which revealed that the applicant was charged with wrongfully and unlawfully selling LSD to another soldier.  The Board determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, there is no apparent error or injustice on which to base recharacterization of his discharge to honorable.

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

KAK____  MDM____  TL______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066314	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020423	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750317	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.