MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084216

	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. Rosa M. Chandler
		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		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) under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was only 18 years of age at the time of the incident and he did not truly understand the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He understands that theft will not be tolerated in any form, but his offense was an isolated incident that involved only $72.00 and may have warranted a lighter sentence.  He also states that he received excellent grades during training.  He submits in support of his request an Associates of Applied Science Degree and a certificate for completion of a computer drafting and design course from Trinity Valley Community College, Athens, Texas. 

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

That on 26 October, he enlisted in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) and on 30 December 1982, at age 19, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army.

The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12E (Atomic Demolitions Munitions Specialist).   On 6 May 1983, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, with duties in his MOS.

On 24 June 1983, nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit on 6 June 1983.  His punishment included 30 days' assignment to the Correctional Custody Facility, reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 and the forfeiture of $286 pay per month for 2 months.

On 4 January 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for stealing a captain's AM/FM radio cassette player, valued at $72.00, on 24 October 1983.  On 19 January 1984, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that separation under chapter 10 could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On the same date, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant's commander stated that barracks theft would not be tolerated and, if the applicant were convicted by court-martial, he would have a federal conviction on his records.

On 31 January 1984, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 13 February 1984, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 13 days of active military service and he had 1 day of recorded lost time due to being AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge 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.  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.

2.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process.  He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.  Further, the applicant was fully apprised of the ramifications of requesting discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, to include receiving a UOTHC discharge.

3.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time that he enlisted.  However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligations.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were correct considering the facts of the case.  Theft is a serious offense that adversely affected the quality of the applicant's service and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 

5.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his achievements since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief based solely on post service accomplishments.

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

__jlp___  __aao___  __phm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084216	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840213	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.