MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            9 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067833

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  He submits a copy of an Application for the Review of Discharge of Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States that contains a statement in support his request, concerning his efforts to set his life back in order.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years as a private, pay grade E-1, on 14 July 1981.  He completed his basic and advanced training as a Fire Control Instrument Repairer.

He attained the rank of specialist four on 1 December 1982.

On 5 July 1983, a CID investigation was initiated concerning the applicant for wrongful possession and distribution of marijuana (hashish) on 30 June 1983.

On 3 August 1983, the applicant was charged with one specification of wrongful distribution of 2 grams of marijuana in the hashish form.

On 15 August 1983, his command reviewed the charges and recommended trial by Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.

On 25 August 1983, the applicant, through counsel, voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, stating that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation and no desire to perform further military service.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf to accompany his request for discharge.  He also acknowledged he understood the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge.

On 13 September 1983, his commander approved his request for discharge for the good of the service.

On 23 September 1983, the appropriate authority approved his discharge and directed he be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued a UOTHC discharge.

He was separated on 11 October 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial.  He was credited with 2 years, 2 months and 28 days net active service.

On 28 October 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his 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 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.  

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and he should not now be allowed to change his mind about accepting the UOTHC discharge at this late date.

4.  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.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_jhl_____  _tlp____  _jns____      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067833	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020509	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.