MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 June 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072795

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).  

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

On 8 November 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 63H (Track Vehicle Repairer) and the additional skill identifier (ASI) P (Parachutist).  At that time, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for his first permanent duty station.  

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 and that during his active duty tenure he earned the Army Service Ribbon and Parachutist Badge.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 
23 October 1984, for sleeping on guard duty.  

On 1 November 1984, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Bragg, and he remained away for 85 days until returning to military control on 24 January 1985.  A Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for this AWOL offense.  

The specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge processing are not on file in the record.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that contains the authority and reason for his discharge.

On 14 March 1985, the applicant was discharged UOTHC.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month, and 13 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 85 days of time lost due to AWOL.  The DD Form 214 issued to him at this time, confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of court-martial.  

On 28 January 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after concluding that it was proper and equitable. 

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 record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  However, the Board notes that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge, and the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of
court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  

3.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service. 

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

__INW__  __KAN__  __RTD___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072795	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/03/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Court Martial 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.