MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          11 September 2003                     
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087166

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser 		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		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:  In effect, that he had a brainstem stroke and he needs his discharge upgraded so he can obtain medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He contends that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable for the following reasons:  (1) his conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were mostly pretty good; (2) his record of promotions show he was generally a good service member; (3) he had a prior honorable discharge; (4) he has been a good citizen since his discharge; 
(5) his ability to serve was impaired because of marital and family problems (his brother was killed in an auto accident in 1979, his sister had cystic fibrosis and was becoming more severe and his mother was having severe emotional problems); and (6) his personal problems impaired his ability to serve.  In support of his application, he submits an unsigned letter, dated 8 February 2003, from the "S.K.Y.L. Sports Medicine and Physical Rehabilitation, In Kwang Yoon MD" describing his current medical problems. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 17 May 1977 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 63C (truck vehicle mechanic).  On 12 March 1980, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years.

Between 15 March 1978 and 12 November 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 7 occasions for failures to repair and being absent without leave (AWOL).   

A bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant on 1 December 1980.

The applicant went AWOL on 29 December 1980 and returned to military control on 19 March 1981.  Charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period and trial by summary court-martial was recommended on 20 March 1981. 

On 9 April 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the DVA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran 

under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.
 
On 10 April 1981, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 29 December 1980 to 19 March 1981.  He was sentenced to forfeit $334 for a period of 1 month and 30 days of confinement at hard labor.  On 4 May 1981, the convening authority approved the sentence. 

On 17 April 1981, the intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant's request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 4 May 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 May 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 3 years, 8 months and 4 days of total active service with 109 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 6 August 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge to general.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 Board considered the applicant's contention that he had a brainstem stroke and he needs his discharge upgraded so he can obtain medical benefits from the DVA.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.

3.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that he has been a good citizen since his discharge.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge. 
 
4.  The Board noted the applicant's claim that his ability to serve was impaired because of family problems.  However, there is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support this contention.    
 
5.  The applicant's contentions regarding his conduct and efficiency ratings, promotions and prior honorable discharge were also noted by the Board.  However, the Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 
7 nonjudicial punishments, one summary court-martial and 109 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

7.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

8.  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

SK_____  CJP____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087166	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19810508	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.