MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 May 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068506

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin 		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 be upgraded to general.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he needs his discharge upgraded to general so he can obtain medical benefits from the Veterans Administration.  He also contends that at the time of his discharge he was told that he would receive a general discharge.   

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

The applicant enlisted on 3 November 1975 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a chaparral crewman.

The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 May 1977.  He was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 2 August 1977.  On 5 August 1977, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.

On 5 August 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and that he had been advised and understood of the possible effects of a Discharge Certificate Under Other than Honorable Conditions; that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  
   
The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 23 August 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 September 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 
13 days of total active service with 86 days lost due to AWOL.   

On 3 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to general so he can obtain medical benefits from the Veterans Administration.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.  

2.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that at the time of his discharge he was told that he would receive a general discharge.  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.  Evidence of record does show that on 5 August 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant indicated in his voluntary request for discharge that he understood if his request was accepted that he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included a 82-day AWOL period terminated by apprehension by civil authorities and determined that his record of service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

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

6.  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.
  
7.  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___  JTM_____  KWL_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068506	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020507	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770913	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.