MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086977

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was having a nervous breakdown and was denied treatment.  In order to cope with his issues, he went absent without leave (AWOL).  Since his service was excellent to that point and he was denied treatment, he should have been afforded trial by court-martial and the opportunity to receive an honorable discharge. 

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

He enlisted in Oakland, California, on 22 November 1983 for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to Europe.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 12 March 1984.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 September 1985.

On 22 August 1986, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until he was apprehended and was returned to military authorities in Bamberg, Germany, on 29 October 1986.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 30 October 1986 for being AWOL from 22 August to 30 October 1986, without authority and with intent to avoid maneuvers.

On 5 December 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  Additionally, he acknowledged that he understood that there were no automatic provisions for upgrading a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that the percentage of such discharges upgraded by the ADRB and this Board were very low.  He further elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 16 December 1986, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 January 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 11 months and 26 days of total active service and had 55 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His records show that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Achievement Medal, the Expert Infantryman Badge and the Driver and Mechanic Badge with Track Bar.

A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever received any disciplinary action or that he sought help for his alleged nervous state or any other related problems.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he 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 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 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 admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they 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 is normally considered appropriate and there have never been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a discharge.

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.  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.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering the length of his absence.  
4.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions and finds that they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances.  While he may have been experiencing personal problems at the time, there is no evidence to show that he made any attempt to seek assistance from his chain of command to resolve his problems or at least offer a reasonable explanation to explain his misconduct at the time. 

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

___hbo__  __tl_____  __ao____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086977	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1987/01/13	
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.