RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 February 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090623

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was separated for being absent without leave (AWOL) and that he was advised his discharge would be upgraded to that of a general discharge after 6 months.  The type of discharge he received denies him job opportunities.

3.  The applicant provides nothing in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant served in the United States Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP) from 27 December 1996 to 27 January 1997 when he was honorably separated and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded MOS 63B.

2.  On 23 August 1997, the applicant was assigned to Korea.  On 5 May 1998, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and he remained AWOL until he was returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky on 28 October 1998.  The highest rank that he achieved during this period was private first class, pay grade E-3.

3.  The applicant's records do not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, his records do contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of his separation.  The DD Form 214 shows that on 9 February 2000, he was separated for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in pay grade E1 with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months and 14 days of active military service and he had 179 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 

4.  On 7 May 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  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 was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The available records show the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  Although the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  He would have consulted with defense counsel and signed a statement indicating that he had been informed he could receive a UOTHC discharge and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  He would have voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.  The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

2.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade a discharge or to accept a request for the upgrade of a discharge after a certain amount of time.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the evidence supports that the characterization of service or the reason(s) for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.  The applicant has provided no evidence to support either.

3.  A denial of job opportunities does not establish a basis for the upgrade of a discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jhl___  __le____  __rjo___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

			Joann Langston
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090623	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040212	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20000209	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.