MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 October 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074424

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  His UOTHC discharge has haunted him.  He really doesn’t remember what he did to warrant an UOTHC discharge.  He does know he wasn’t court-martialed for any offense.

In support of his request the applicant submits letters attesting to his work ethic, and certificates showing that he has completed some training classes.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 August 1978 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of cannon crewman.

The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on five occasions between 8 June 1979 and 6 March 1981, for leaving his guard post, for assaulting a superior noncommissioned officer, for assaulting a fellow enlisted soldier, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, and for disobeying a lawful command.

On 2 April 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order, for being disrespectful in language to a senior noncommissioned officer, for being drunk in his quarters, and for breaking restriction.

On 29 April 1981, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service.  In that request the applicant acknowledged that he may be discharged UOTHC, that an UOTHC discharge could effect his veterans benefits, that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading nor review by any government agency of a less than honorable discharge.

His request was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued an UOTHC Discharge Certificate on 15 May 1981.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to upgrade his discharge, and the time to file an application with that Board has now expired.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s repeated misconduct warranted an UOTHC discharge.

2.  There is no evidence, nor does the applicant suggest, that there was any error or injustice in his discharge.

3.  As such, the applicant's request is predicated upon his post service accomplishments.  In this regard, while the Board finds it commendable that the applicant is now a diligent worker and has taken training courses to better himself, these in of themselves do not warrant upgrading a properly issued UOTHC discharge.

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

__kak ___  ___tap __  ____bjl__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074424	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A76.00	
2.	A92.21	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.