MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           22 May 2003         
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083573

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

    The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 (GD).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was only 18 years of age, when he entered the military and was then stationed in Germany for duty.  He states, that he started drinking with other soldiers and could not control or stop it.  He further states, that he received a couple of tickets for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI’s), and was offered counseling for alcoholism.  He states, “but still could not control it.”  In addition, he states, that he was absent without leave (AWOL) for a couple of days and subsequently put out of the military.   In essence, he further states that he did not realize he could apply for an upgrade of his discharge.
 
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 24 March 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years.   He completed both basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B10 (Cannon Crewman) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On 3 July 1981, he was transferred to Germany for duty in his MOS. 

On 23 August 1982, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 19 August 1982.  His punishment included extra duty and restriction for 14 days.  The portion of his punishment for forfeiture of 
$144.00 pay and reduction to pay grade E-2, was suspended.  

On 30 December 1982, he returned from overseas and was assigned to duty as a Cannoneer at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

On 1 August 1983, the applicant was listed as being absent without leave (AWOL) and carried as a deserter.

On 4 November 1983, the applicant was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky.  On the same day the applicant was counseled on the requirements for completion of a medical examination prior to separation.  He chose to waive his rights to have a medical examination.  He also submitted a request to be placed in a voluntary excess leave status, pending his discharge processing.

On 23 November 1983, the applicant was charged with one specification of violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 1 August – 4 November 1983.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving an UOTHC discharge, and that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army Benefits, and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  He declined to make a statement on his own behalf.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended that he be separated with an UOTHC.

On 23 November 1983, the applicant was placed in an excess leave status and allowed to go home awaiting the separation processing. 

On 9 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, directed he be issued an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

On 23 December 1983, he was separated with an UOTHC discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 27 days of creditable service, with 36 days of lost time due to being AWOL and 31 days of excess leave.  The highest rank he achieved was pay grade E-3.
  
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.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, shows that a
punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL of more than 30 days.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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:

2.  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.  

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

    RVO          SK             GJW       DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200308573	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030522	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983-12-23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Ch 10, AWOL	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.