MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073470

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was interviewed by military police at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York.  He was told to remain out for 30 days and that he would be transferred to another unit.  He contends that he was wrongfully discharged because he was on leave from his unit at the time.  He states that his First Sergeant "had it out" for him because he had reported him to the chaplain.  He also states that the First Sergeant refused to take him back when he called the unit.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet (FDCF Form 691A).

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

The applicant initially served in the Army National Guard from August 1981 to April 1983.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 May 1985.

Records show that he was AWOL on 28 February 1986 and was dropped from the unit rolls on 30 March 1986.  He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York on 31 March 1986.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 April 1986 for this period of AWOL.

The applicant provided a copy of a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 2 April 1986.  On this document, the applicant indicated that he was AWOL because of "marriage problems" and his "health."

On 4 April 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an UOTHC discharge were issued.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 22 April 1986, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge and that an UOTHC Discharge Certificate be issued.

The separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge on 12 May 1986 and directed issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 June 1986 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 1 year and 27 days of creditable service with 31 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 4 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of 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 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.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The Board considered the applicant's contentions that he was interviewed by military police at Fort Hamilton and was told to "remain out" for 30 days and that by doing so, he would be transferred to another unit.  

4.  The Board also considered the applicant's contention that he was wrongfully discharged and that he was on leave from his unit at the time.  However, the applicant's contentions are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  There is no apparent evidence that the discharge process was flawed, in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant's discharge to general.

5.  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.

6.  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

CLA_____  JTM_____  MHM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073470	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020905	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860630	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.