MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068651

	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:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded because it is difficult to find employment with his UOTHC discharge. 

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

He was involuntarily ordered to active duty from the Army National Guard of the United States on 14 August 1975 for a period of 19 months and 12 days.  He entered active duty as a private/E-2 serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman, and was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas. 

On 25 November 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1 and forfeiture of $93.00 pay per month for 1 month.

On 9 March 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 3 to 4 March 1976.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $84.50 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 60 days) and 14 days' extra duty.

On 23 March 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from his unit on 15 March 1976.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $84.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days' restriction and extra duty.

On 11 November 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from his unit from 4 to 14 October and 21 to 26 October 1976 and two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $180.00 pay per month for 1 month, and 45 days' restriction and extra duty.

On 30 December 1976, the applicant was barred from reenlisting because of his unreliability, frequent absences, late arrivals to work, lack of initiative, and avoidance of all work details.

On 2 January 1977, the applicant accepted NJP for disorderly conduct and one specification of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of 10 days' restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was absent from his unit from 4 to 6 February 1977; however, the record does not reflect any punishment for this absence.

On 7 March 1977, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from his unit from 20 to 25 January 1977.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $187.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days' in correctional custody.

On 16 March 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for stealing an adding machine, valued at $186.00 and a typewriter, valued at $231.00.

On 25 March 1977, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant did not provide a statement in support of his request.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request with a UOTHC discharge.

On 14 April 1977, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 and directed issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

On 25 April 1977, the applicant was discharged from the service after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 13 days of creditable military service and accruing 29 days of lost time.

On 7 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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.  The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct.  The Board determined that his numerous 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 sympathizes with the applicant's difficulty in finding employment; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  

3.  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.

4.  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

__jhl___  __rvo___  __bjl____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068651	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020822	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770425	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A72.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.