MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 May 2002        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069820

	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 he truly feels he was a good soldier during his duty, that he was very young and did not understand what was happening and that he made a mistake with his military career.  He contends that he served his country with total dedication for 4 years and 9 months and should be allowed to collect benefits.  He also contends that had he been treated fairly by his commander that he would have retired from the Army, that he had a lot of personal and family problems and that he made a terrible mistake when he decided to go absent without leave (AWOL).   

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

The applicant enlisted on 27 January 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He served as an indirect fire crewman and was honorably discharged on 21 November 1977 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 22 November 1977 for a period of 
6 years.  

On 3 January 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go to his appointed place of duty (two specifications).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for 60 days) and extra duty.

On 4 May 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in deportment, disobeying a lawful order, being disrespectful in language and communicating a threat to injure a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended until 3 July 1979) and a forfeiture of pay (suspended until 3 July 1979).   

The applicant’s records show that he was AWOL for 1 day on 6 March 1978; that he was confined by civil authorities from 23 March 1978 to 27 March 1978 and from 28 June 1978 to 29 June 1978; and that he was AWOL from 9 February 1980 to 4 May 1980; for a total of 93 days lost time.    

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records; however, his records show that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 June 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 4 years, 2 months and 5 days of total active service with 93 days of lost time.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  

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 contentions.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.  

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation  appear to be appropriate.

3.  The Board reviewed the available records which shows that the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 93 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, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  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.

5.  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	AR2002069820	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020521	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800625	
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.