MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068418

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded for medical reasons.

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

On 7 May 1979, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman).  His record documents no acts or valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).

While assigned to Germany, the applicant departed on ordinary leave on 
15 December 1980.  Upon his failure to return from this leave, he was declared absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on 4 January 1981.  He remained away for 36 days until returning to military control on 9 February 1981.  On 
12 February 1981, he was charged with a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for this period of AWOL.  

On 13 February 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its effects, and the possible effects of receiving an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Along with his discharge request, he submitted a statement in his own behalf that indicated he thought by joining the Army it would benefit himself and his family. However, he could not support his family from Germany, and he needed to be home to protect and provide them with the necessary care.

On 9 April 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 4 May 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 
23 days of creditable active military service and having accrued a total of 36 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 2 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and it denied his request for an upgrade.

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 for members separating under these provisions. 

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 the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded for medical reasons.  However, there is no medical evidence of record that shows that the applicant had a medically disabling condition that prevented his continued service at the time of his discharge, and he has failed to provide independent evidence to show he has a service related disabling medical condition that would have supported a medical discharge at the time.  Therefore, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support his claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  

3.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service. 

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          KWL           JTM      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068418	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810504	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by CM	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.