MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 May 2002        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069725

	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:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge should be upgraded to honorable for the following reasons:  (1) his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good [or pretty good]; (2) he received awards and decorations; (3) he received letters of recommendation; (4) there were other acts of merit; (5) he was so close to finishing his tour that it was unfair to give him a bad discharge; (6) his record of absent without leave (AWOL)/unauthorized absence (UA) indicates only minor or isolated offenses; (7) his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, personal problems, psychiatric problems and certain other problems; (8) when he got back from overseas, he just couldn’t adjust to state-side duty; (9) he had tried to apply for a hardship discharge but was unfairly told to forget it; and (10) he had applied or tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.    

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

The applicant enlisted on 5 May 1981 for a period of 3 years.  He served as an infantryman in Panama from 20 July 1981 through 20 July 1983.

On 7 November 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 3 October 1983 to 18 October 1983. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, extra duty and restriction.

Records show the applicant went AWOL from 18 November 1983 to 
12 December 1983, that he was confined by civil authorities from 13 December 1983 to 15 December 1983 and that he was AWOL from 20 December 1983 to 
6 March 1985.     

On 3 April 1985, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 20 December 1983 to 6 March 1985.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 4 April 1985, 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 furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA; 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 Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 17 June 1985, 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 8 July 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had served 2 years, 10 month and 4 days of total active service with 485 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records which shows that he applied for a hardship discharge or a compassionate reassignment.

On 6 August 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge 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 an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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’s contention that his record of AWOL/UA indicates only minor or isolated offenses is not supported by the evidence of record.  Evidence of record shows that he has a total of 485 days of lost time.
2.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth, immaturity, personal and psychiatric problems, and other problems.  However, he has provided no evidence to support these contentions.

3.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions that he had tried to apply for a hardship discharge and a compassionate reassignment.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support these contentions.     

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included one nonjudicial punishment and 485 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

5.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all 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

JLP____  BJE_____  TL______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069725	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020521	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850708	
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.