ORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           16 September 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089160

	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. Yvonne J. Foskey		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:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he would like to have his discharge upgraded. 

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

On 23 February 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

The applicant’s record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1 (PVT), and it documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 26 July 1978, a court-martial charge sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 9 July 1977 to on or about 25 July 1978.

On 28 July 1978, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UD discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

On 10 August 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, and directed that he be separated for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and that he be given an UD discharge.  On 7 September 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he received a UD discharge, under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of conduct triable by court-martial.  It shows that at the time of his separation he had completed a total of 5 months and 23 days of creditable military service, and had accrued 382 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 9 November 1983, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge.  On 24 May 1984, the ADRB found both the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge to be proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request.  

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-marital.  A discharge under the other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However at the time of the applicant’s discharge, issuance of an UD was authorized.

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 Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his discharge is not warranted at this time.

2.  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 request.

3.  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

__FE__  ___KH__  ___MM_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.