MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           20 November 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088031

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann  H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert Duecaster 		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he volunteered for the service to broaden his horizon, to take advantage of the educational and other benefits the service had to offer.  Unfortunately, he lacked the maturity and discipline to achieve his goals.  If he knew then what he knows now, he would feel a lot more content with his past tenure in the service.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 1981, for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training in Military Occupational Speciality (MOS) 36K00 (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  On 30 December 1981, he was transferred to Germany for duty.  

On 29 September 1982, he received his first nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer.  His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-2, extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 27 January 1983, he received a second NJP, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer to unlock the door to his room.  His punishments included forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 17 July 1983, the applicant was confined to U.S. Army Confinement Facility, Mannheim, Germany. 

On 9 September 1983, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
willfully disobeying a lawful command of an officer, resisting apprehension, assaulting a military policeman, being drunk and disorderly, using offensive language towards non-commissioned and commissioned officers and possessing hashish.  His approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $382.00 pay per month for 3 months.  The service member’s chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request to go home pending completion of appellate review.  

On 9 November 1983, the applicant received a medical and mental status evaluation and was cleared for separation.

On 17 November 1983, the commander approved the applicant’s request and directed that the applicant be placed in a voluntary excess leave status, effective 18 November 1983.  

On 12 December 1985, as the result of a decision by the Army Court of Military Review, the applicant was recalled to duty for a rehearing at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  

On 18 December 1985, the applicant, consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged the maximum allowable punishment and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge.  The applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge.   

On 16 January 1986, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC certificate.

On 25 February 1986, the applicant was separated in pay grade E-1 with a UOTHC Discharge Certificate, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had completed 4 years, 6 months and 15 days of creditable active service.  He also accrued 68 days of excess leave and had been retained 
564 days pending appellate review.  The highest rank he attained was private first class (E-3).
 
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 court-martial charges have been preferred.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 3 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of multiple offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.  The separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The discharge appropriately characterizes the applicant’s record of service.
 2.  The applicant's contention that he lacked the maturity and discipline to achieve his goals is not convincing to the Board.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service.  Neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of the offenses, therefore they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

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

___JH   _   __RD___  ___LDS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088031	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003.11.20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986.01.16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.