MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086315

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had 5 years of good time when he was in the Army and that he does not believe that that it is fair that he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

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

On 2 August 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a motor transportation operator.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 30 September 1976, to pay grade E-3 on 2 August 1977 and to pay grade E-4 on 1 January 1978.

He completed 2 years, 6 months and 12 days of total active service and on 14 February 1979, he reenlisted in the Army for 3 years.  

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 17 November 1980, for striking a private.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 60 days).

On 10 December 1980, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was discharged on 21 December 1981, under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 5 years, 4 months and 20 days of total active service.

There is no evidence of record that shows 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 is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The available evidence shows that he chose to submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and although he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

3.  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.

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

__mb ___  __tbr____  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086315	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19811221	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  708	144.7100/CONDUCT TRIABLE BY CM	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.