MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069719

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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:  That he was having trouble with his wife and he went absent without leave (AWOL).  He realized what he did was wrong and he returned to Fort Knox, KY.  He was interested in completing his time and continuing his career.  The captain told him his options were either take what she said was a general discharge or he could stay but he would have to go to Fort Leavenworth (for confinement) for one year.  He was young and that scared him, so he took the discharge.  He thinks he was misled about the type of discharge he would receive.  He has medical problems now and could really use his veterans benefits.  He provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and one letter of support dated 11 January 2002 as supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1981 for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He was honorably discharged on      13 July 1984 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 14 July 1984 for         5 years. 

On 23 July 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of $192.00 pay (suspended), 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.  On        26 September 1985, the suspended punishments were vacated when the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from his superior commissioned officer not to go more than 300 miles from Fort Knox, KY without a pass.  

The applicant departed AWOL on 23 October 1985.  He surrendered to military authorities on 14 December 1985.  

On 19 December 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with AWOL for the period 23 October to on or about       14 December 1985. 

On 20 December 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 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.   He understood that, if his request was accepted, he could be discharged under conditions which were other than honorable and furnished an Other Than Honorable discharge certificate.  He was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 December 1985, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending his discharge.

On 24 December 1985, the applicant’s company commander recommended approval of his request and recommended a discharge UOTHC.  On 2 January 1986, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 30 January 1986, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed a total of 4 years,     3 months, and 28 days of creditable active service and had 52 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 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.  A discharge UOTHC 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 or duress.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was told he would be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Considering the length of his AWOL, combined with his two immediately prior incidents of misconduct, the characterization of his discharge as UOTHC was appropriate.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s good post service conduct; however, that factor alone does not warrant the relief requested.
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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR202069719	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/01/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.