MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 August 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002066806

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that except for the one mistake that resulted in his discharge, he served honorably and requests that his case be reviewed based on years of service and post-service good citizenship.

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

The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 18 February 1981 with a four-year active duty obligation.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman). 

The applicant was promoted to specialist fourth class (E-4), his highest grade held, on 1 May 1983 while on a three-year assignment in Germany.   During this tour of duty, he received four certificates of appreciation for his actions and dedication.

On 17 February 1984, the applicant was awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period of 18 February 1981 through 17 February 1984.

The applicant reenlisted, again for four years, on 17 May 1985.  At the time of his reassignment, from Germany to Ft. Stewart, Georgia in December 1985, he was on the command's E-5 promotion list.  

On 20 April 1986, the applicant was listed as absent without leave (AWOL).  He remained AWOL until he turned himself into military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 19 August 1986.  Prior to this AWOL there is no indication of any negative or derogatory notations in the applicant's file.

Court-martial charges were preferred for AWOL and the applicant was advised of his rights and options.  After consulting with military counsel, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.  The applicant waived his right to a separation medical examination, to have his complete records available for the processing of this action, and to submit a statement on his own behalf.
The discharge authority accepted the request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 20 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The applicant's service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He was shown to have had 5 years, 4 months, and 5 days of service with 3 months and 29 days of lost time due to AWOL and 56 days of excess leave.

The applicant submits four personal statements from superiors and a fellow employee attesting to his character, dedication and devotion to his job and fellow man.  They describe him as an honest and hard working man.  He also submits a copy of a police records check that revealed no records of arrests or charges.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A punitive discharge is authorized for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

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 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s post service activities, however, these activities are not so exceptionally meritorious as to outweigh the offense that resulted in his discharge.

3.  The Board concludes that the applicant has failed to demonstrate an error or injustice in the nature or characterization of his period of 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

__MMD__  _RWA___  __CLG__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066806	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020820	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.