MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085872

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Terry L. Placek		Member	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded and that the narrative reason for discharge be corrected to read convenience of the government. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge is unfairly harsh for the circumstances and should be upgraded.  In support of application, he submits three separate self-authored statements and the following documents:  award certificates for the Army Good Conduct Medal and Army Achievement Medal; four certificates of training; and six certificates of academic achievement.

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

He initially entered the Army on 19 August 1995 and was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 9 June 1998.  On 10 June 1998, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman).  

The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP/E-4).  It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: Army Achievement Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; and Overseas Service Ribbon.

The applicant’s record also shows that he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 18 December 1998, for stealing a cell phone valued at $150.00.

On 12 March 1999, while he was serving in Italy, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for making a false official statement, three specifications of breaking restriction, and selling or giving one or more military identification (ID) cards to a civilian.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the impact of an UOTHC discharge, and of his rights in connection with the matter.  

On 22 March 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its effects, and the possible effects of receiving an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

On 29 March 1999, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 25 April 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 3 years, 7 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service.  

On 20 February 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade and change the narrative reason for his discharge. 

The three enclosed self-authored statements submitted by the applicant reveal his interpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding his breaking restriction and his post service accomplishments.

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

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

1.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.  

3.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that 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

___tlp___  ___rvo __  __rld____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002085872	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/04/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR^35-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu Of Trail By CM	
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 689	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.