MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068869

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions by upgraded to under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he wants his benefits as a veteran restored because he was not convicted of the felony he was charged with.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 20 July 1983.  He was trained as a construction equipment repairer and was assigned to Germany until 14 November 1985.  He had been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 effective 1 April 1985.  He reenlisted on 30 January 1987.

While assigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts, on 16 September 1988, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant had consulted with counsel and acknowledged the charges that had been preferred against him.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges that could result in a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated that he did not desire further rehabilitation or further military service.  He also acknowledged that he might be deprived of many or all benefits as a veteran and might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on the discharge he might receive.  Neither the charge sheet nor a statement in his own behalf is in the available record.

The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the request with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  On 6 October 1988, the separation authority, a major general, approved the request and directed separation in the lowest enlisted grade under other than honorable conditions.

Effective 13 October 1988, the applicant was separated under other than honorable conditions under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 5 years, 2 months, and 24 days creditable service and no 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 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.

On 8 November 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board 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 applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all benefits as a veteran.  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the available facts of the case.

3.  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

__tk___  __ho___  ___jm_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068869	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19881013	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CHAP 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.