MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          16 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088607

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that there were circumstances involving his absence without leave (AWOL) and he was given "improper information on prior honorable discharge."  He claims, in effect, that counsel did not inform him of other options that were available to him. The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

After having prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 1984 for a period of 3 years.  He completed advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas in duty military occupational specialty 52D (Power Generator Equipment Repairer).  He was promoted to specialist four on 1 October 1984.

On 6 November 1984, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for writing checks without sufficient funds in the bank.  This letter of reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Texas orders dated 14 March 1985 reassigned the applicant to the 21st Adjutant General Replacement Battalion in Germany.

Records show the applicant departed AWOL on 1 July 1985.  He surrendered to military authorities in Des Moines, Iowa and was returned to military control on  16 August 1985.

On 21 August 1985, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 July 1985 through 15 August 1985.  

On 22 August 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Affairs if an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate was issued.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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.

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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

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 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.  

3.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights or that his request for a chapter 10 discharge was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Affairs benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

5.  Based on the foregoing, the Board has determined that there is no apparent error, injustice or inequity on which to base recharacterization of the applicant's discharge.

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

FNE_____  MHM_____  KAH_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088607	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030916	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850923	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service – In the Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.