MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 NOVEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070179

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant states that he would be providing a brief explaining why he felt his discharge was in error, however no brief has been received from the applicant.

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

On 9 January 1978 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  

On 30 April 1978, he was awarded the military occupational specialty 76Y (supply clerk) and assigned as a unit supply clerk at Fort Lewis, Washington.

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 June 1978.

Evidence shows that the applicant received a field grade Article 15 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for breaking restriction from a previous punishment.

On 13 February 1979, the applicant was charged with disobedience of a lawful command from a captain, disobedience of a lawful order from his First Sergeant (three specifications), disrespectful to his First Sergeant, disobedience of a lawful order and disrespect to another soldier.  

On 15 February 1979, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant requested a discharge, for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. 

On 26 February 1979, a Mental Status Evaluation and Physical Examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 7 March 1979, he was reduced to pay grade E-1, effective 28 February 1979.

On 14 April 1979, he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he 1 year, 2 months and 6 days of active service.

On 27 October 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at that time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

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 that 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

__JNS __  __SVW__  __MHM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070179	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021119	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.