MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            1 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068280

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to reflect his overall quality of service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that 19 years have passed since he was discharged and he believes it is an injustice for the record to remain as it now is.  He states that he has been a good citizen since discharge and believes that he can still contribute to his country and government.

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

He enlisted in the United States Army on 24 October 1975 for a period of 4 years.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, as his first permanent assignment.  

On 21 December 1977, the applicant was transferred to Fort Ord, California.  On 28 February 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and 10 days' extra duty.

On 23 April 1979, the applicant was separated with an honorable characterization of service for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 24 April 1979 for a period of 6 years.

On 1 November 1979, the applicant was reassigned to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  On 7 July 1980, the applicant accepted NJP for unlawfully grabbing a noncommissioned officer (sergeant/E-5) by the wrist and pushing him off of a chair and onto the floor.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $156.00 pay for one month (suspended), 14 days' extra duty, and 14 days' restriction (suspended).

On 4 June 1981, the applicant accepted NJP for dereliction of duty in that he failed to stay awake, as it was his duty to do so as Charge of Quarters.  His punishment consisted of reduction to specialist/E-4 (suspended) and 15 days' restriction.

On 2 September 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his place of duty from 4 to 6 July 1981; through design missing movement on 2 July 1981; failing to reside in his room on 2 July and 10 July 1981 after being placed on quarters for 72 hours; and for stealing United States Currency of about $260.00, the property of a private/E-1 on 2 May 1981.

On 9 September 1981, the applicant was arrested and confined by civil authorities on extortion charges.  

On 21 October 1981, while in the hands of civil authorities, and after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant provided a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he knew he was facing serious charges and if he could make them disappear he would without hesitation.  He stated that he felt it in his and the Army's best interest that he be administratively discharged.  He concluded his statement by asking that the request be granted and that he be discharged with at least a general discharge.

On 23 October 1981, the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 28 October 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed issuance of an UOTHC discharge.  Accordingly, on 25 February 1982, the applicant was discharged from service after completing 6 years, 4 months, and 3 days of creditable military service.

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.  

On 17 January 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct.  The Board determined that these incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.  

2.  The Board notes the applicant’s letter with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

3.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

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 evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sac___  __mhm___  __rks___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068280	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020801	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820225	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.