MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:          06 November 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003089592

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has lived with his error for a long time, and would like to have his discharge upgraded before he dies.

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

On 20 September 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

On 30 January 1979, the applicant’s commander preferred court-martial charges against him for larceny.  He was accused of stealing one stereo turntable, one stereo receiver, and one pair of headphones from another soldier on 6 January 1979. 

On 9 February 1979, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily 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.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him, and that he understood the effects of receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

On 16 February 1979, a Mental Status Evaluation, and a Report of Medical Examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 22 March 1979, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

On 2 April 1979, the applicant was separated with an UOTHC discharge under the above cited regulation.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he had 6 months and 13 days of active service.

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.

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.  The type of discharge directed and reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The applicant’s request to change the type of his discharge, because of the passage of time, is not sufficient enough to warrant upgrading his discharge. 

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 that 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

__SK ___  __RJW __  __MMB _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089592	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.