MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068244

	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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes that he was not afforded proper counseling.  He was going through some very difficult family problems and he started drinking to forget them.  He was told by his first sergeant to stop his drinking.  He was counseled by his Chaplain concerning his family problems.  He had only one session and no solutions to his problems were addressed.  He was not given any assistance with his problems.  He was left with finding the solution to his problems on his own.  As a result of his drinking he made many mistakes.  His mistakes led to him receiving two Article 15s and being reduced from an E-6 to an E-4.  After being reduced to an E-4, he was embarrassed and he gave up and left his command.  The applicant submitted DD Form 293; it was accepted in lieu of DD Form 149.

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

After having prior honorable active duty and reserve service the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1978 for 3 years.  On 22 January 
1981, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 23 January 1981, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years.  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-6.

On 14 February 1984, while assigned to Company A, 548th Engineer Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the applicant accepted nonjudical punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer on 23 December 1984, for dereliction of duty on 30 and 31 January 1984, and for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-5 and 45 days extra duty.

On 9 November 1984, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to repair on 
1 November 1984 and for dereliction of duty on 3 November 1984.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4, 45 days extra duty and a forfeiture of $450.00 pay per month for two months (suspended for 6 months).

On 16 November 1984, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL). 
On 17 March 1985, the applicant surrendered to military authority at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

On 18 March 1985, the applicant waived his rights to a separation physical.

On 20 March 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 16 November 1984 to 17 March 1985.

On 20 March 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf.  The applicant stated in effect, that after being reduced to E-4, he could not take the embarrassment.  He had been an E-6 for six years before being reduced to 
E-4.  He knew that there was no hope of him completing 20 years of service.  He felt that it was only a matter of time before the paper work was to filter down for his discharge.  He had bills to pay and 2 children to support so he left his unit and went back home to get a job.

On 8 April 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 30 April 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 16 years, 4 months and 5 days of total active duty service, 1 year and 4 days of inactive service and he had 120 days of lost time.

On 11 February 1997, 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.  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. 

2.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions that his command treated him improperly, his family problems caused undue stress, or that alcohol affected his capability to serve in the military.  The applicant had other legal or administrative avenues open to him without committing the serious offense of being AWOL which led to court-martial charges being preferred against him.

3.  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.

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

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 evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_ _INW_ _  __KAN__  __RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068244	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/27	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.