MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084982

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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 under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has paid for his past mistakes and has changed his entire life.  He is now in need of assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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

He enlisted in Knoxville, Tennessee, on 3 September 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as a tactical wire operations specialist and assignment to Europe.

He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 5 January 1981.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 3 March 1981.

On 2 July 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the wrongful possession and use of marijuana in hashish form.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 22 January 1982, the applicant's commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant's disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, poor performance, poor attitude, disrespect towards superiors, shirking and immaturity.  The applicant acknowledged that he understood the basis for the commander's recommendation and elected not to submit matters in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 25 January 1982.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do show that he had an approved discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, when he was admitted to Landstuhl Army Regional Hospital in Germany and was subsequently medically evacuated for further treatment, to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in Washington, D.C. on 26 May 1982.  He was subsequently reassigned to the Medical Holding Company at WRAMC and was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 October 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years and 29 days of total active service.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was at that time and is still 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been considered by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished service.  

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

___lf____  __wtm __  ___le____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084982	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/10/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	GD OF SVC	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689	144.7000/A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.