MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070404

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 a discharge under honorable conditions (general).

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Veterans Administration Region Office (VARO) determined his discharge to be under honorable conditions and his Report of Separation (DD Form 214) should be corrected accordingly.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of a letter from the VARO dated 15 February 1979.

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

On 16 September 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a tank driver.

The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 April 1978 and he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 5 May 1978.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged on 22 June 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of total active service and he had 31 days of lost time due to AWOL. He was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 15 February 1979, the VARO notified the applicant that a determination had been made relative to the character of his discharge.  The VARO found that his discharge from military service on 22 June 1978 was issued under honorable conditions and is not a bar to benefits.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 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.

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 Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the VARO, using its own discretion, has the authority to make a determination of service for the purpose of awarding benefits.  Nonetheless, this Board is not bound by the determination made by the VARO and in no way does it modify the decision previously made by the Department of the Army.

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was AWOL for 31 days and that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, which normally results in the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

4.  It appears that his discharge is properly characterized and his DD Form 214 is correct as currently reflected.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.

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

__hof ___  __gw____  ___jlp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070404	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1978/06/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.