MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            09 JULY 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073015

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant made no statements, nor submitted any evidence in support of his request to this Board.  However, in an application to the Army Discharge Review Board, the applicant stated, in effect, that he attained the maximum score possible in all areas of his promotion board except in the area of civilian education.  He indicated that his unit commander told him if he could get acceptance letters from two other military police sections she would have him transferred to one of those sections which would permit him to attend college level education courses.  He stated that once he received the acceptance letters his commander refused to assist him.  When he told her he would go AWOL (absent without leave) she laughed at him and made no effort to assist him.  He states that since his discharge he has pursued his education and was on the "Dean's List" in 2001.  He notes that he had an excellent record as a military policeman, and had hoped to retire from the military.  In support of his application to the Army Discharge Review Board he submitted a copy of his AA (Associate of Arts) Degree and membership card for Phi Theta Kappa, an international honor society.

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

He served an initial period of active duty between 1982 and 1987.  At the time of his 1987 discharge he was serving in pay grade E-4 and was separated as part of a voluntary early discharge program.  During his initial period of active duty he was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal, several marksmanship qualification badges, and performed duties as a military policeman.

In August 1988 he reenlisted and returned to active duty.  In October 1990, while assigned to a military police unit in Germany, the applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for meritorious services during the period "23 Sep 88 to 18 Sep 90."  He was serving in pay grade E-5 at the time.  His performance evaluation reports, while in Germany, indicated that he was consistently rated as "fully capable" and his senior raters rated his overall performance and potential at either 2 or 3 (a rating of 1 being the highest rating possible).

A performance evaluation report rendered in April 1991, while the applicant was assigned to a military police unit at Fort Meade, Maryland, indicated the applicant was fully qualified, but his senior rater rated his overall performance and potential as fair.  His subsequent performance evaluation report, rendered in September 1991, noted that the applicant "has difficulty in accepting responsibility and facing up to problems-went AWOL."

On 4 September 1991 the applicant was reported as AWOL.  He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 4 October 1991.  He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey and was returned to military control on 
11 December 1991.

Although a copy of the charge sheet is not in available records, the applicant was apparently charged with AWOL and as such, consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  

In a statement submitted on his own behalf he noted that he had attempted to submit an application to attend the MPI (Military Police Investigator) Course and was told he needed a "name check" before his request could be approved.  He indicated he was never able to get anyone to complete, or even acknowledge what a "name check" was, and as such his request was never processed.  After working as a patrolman with the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Meade he was told he was being assigned to another military police unit at Fort Meade (209th MP Company), in spite of requests by two difference sections (traffic and game warden) that he be assigned to them.  He states that he was trying to obtain custody of his daughter.  He indicated that he felt his unit and the Army had let him down and he finally gave up.  In an earlier statement, rendered at the time he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, the applicant indicated that because of all the stress he began drinking.  He stated that after he went AWOL he stopped drinking.

A mental health evaluation, conducted as part of his separation processing, found the applicant fully alert and oriented, his memory good, and his thought process clear and normal.  It determined the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved and on 2 April 1992 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

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.  
In May 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

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 accordance with established regulations with no indication that his rights were jeopardized.

2.  The evidence indicates he elected to request an administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial because he was unable to get an assignment he wanted, apparently in order to obtain custody of his child, that the Army and his unit had let him down, and he had begun drinking.  The Board notes that the applicant now contends that he went AWOL because he had secured a reassignment, which would have permitted him to continue his education, and his commander would not assist him with the transfer.  There is no evidence in available records, or presented by the applicant, that either version of his explanation for AWOL was based in fact.  The Board concludes the applicant made his choices freely and his belief that either situation should somehow excuse his behavior, or justify the basis for upgrading his discharge, is without foundation.  

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

__JL____  __TBR __  __RWA__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073015	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020709	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.