MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          11June 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068504

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he spent 3 years, 2 days and over 12 hours in the Army.  He also request that consideration should be given to the fact that he was young and stupid.  He also would like to get the discharge changed for medical reason. 

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

On 21 January 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B10 (Food Service Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 9 September 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 to 4 September 1975.  His imposed punishment was 7 days extra duty.  

On 18 March 1976, the applicant accepted NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and a reduction to pay grade E-2, which was suspended for 45 days.  

On 2 November 1977, the applicant accepted NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 24 to 28 October 1977.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-3, which was suspended for a period of 90 days.  On 17 November 1977, the unexecuted portion of the punishment of reduction to pay grade E-3 was vacated.      

On 19 September 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 22 December 1977 to 14 September 1978. 

On 20 September 1978, a Report of Medical Examination and a Report of Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.  

On the same day, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily without any coercion 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 acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offenses charged.  The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged that he understood 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, but declined to do so.  
The company commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s personal conduct, his attitude toward military life and his lack of rehabilitative potential.  

On 29 September 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  

On 12 October 1978, 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 had completed 2 years, 11 months and 1 day of creditable active military service and 233 days of lost time. 

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.  

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 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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 22 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.

4.  Although the applicant has expressed regret for his action; this Board cannot disregard the applicant’s conduct while in the military.

5.  Therefore, 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

__FNE__  __RWA__  __HBO___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068504	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978/10/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.5100		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.