MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           10 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073812

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	M. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of separation he was young and unwise.  As a man today this separation is still a burden.  He is now a youth pastor.

He submits no evidence to support his request, but notes that his medical records are located in St. Louis, Missouri.

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

He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 12 August 1977 and was involuntarily ordered to active duty on 13 February 1978.  At the time of the involuntary call to active duty, he was 20 years old and had 11 years of education.

On 14 March 1979, a Charge Sheet was prepared charging the applicant with absent without leave from 18 February 1978 through 6 July 1978 and 15 July 1978 through 2 March 1979.

On 15 March 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found mentally capable of understanding and participating in separation proceedings.

Also, on 15 March 1979, the applicant completed a separation physical examination for the purpose of a chapter 10 discharge.  He was found qualified for separation.

On 16 March 1979, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) chapter 10.  He indicated in the request that he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He indicated that he also understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he might be deprived of many or all Army, Veterans Administration; and Federal and State benefits.  He understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  He acknowledged by his signature that he had consulted with counsel who had fully advised him in this matter.  The applicant declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 27 March 1979, the Personnel Control Facility Commander, where the applicant was then assigned, recommended approval of the applicant's request for separation and further recommended that he be provided an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

On 29 March 1979, the appropriate authorities approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

A DD Form 214, Report of Separation From Active Duty, signed by the applicant, reflects that on 6 April 1979, he was discharged in pay grade E-1.  On the date of his separation, he had completed 1 month and 18 days active Federal service and had 371 days lost time.  His character of service was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

A review of the applicant's medical records found no information to cast doubt on the chapter 10 proceedings.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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.  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 states he was young and unwise and implies this led to an inability to perform military service.  This contention is not supported by any evidence submitted by him, or contained in records available to the Board.

2.  The Board noted that at time the applicant was 20 years of age, that he submitted no statement on his own behalf at the time he underwent the separation board proceedings.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully 

completed military service.  It is also noted that again the applicant provides no explanation of the circumstances that led to his separation; nor does he provide any evidence of post service achievement.  The applicant questions the wisdom of accepting the chapter 10 discharge.  The applicant requested and accepted a chapter 10 separation discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, a possible conviction and imprisonment.  In light of the circumstances the acceptance of the chapter 10 separation may have been a wise decision.

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 this requirement.

4.  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.

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:

___rjw____  ____rwa ___jtm __  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

______ __  _______  _________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073812	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021010	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 625-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.