MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:             9 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999029450

	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.

	Ms. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 an general discharge (GD) or an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his ability to serve was impaired due to being young and immaturity and a extreme alcohol drinker which impaired his judgement from understanding the benefits the military could offer him.  He also points state that 31 years have past and since         

e youth  as an immaturity to understand , alcoholism  and that the punishment he received at discharge was too harsh.  He points out that his punishment was much worse than most people receive for the same offense. He submits a letter of explanation for his actions, several letters of character reference and a copy of his son’s birth certificate.

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

He served in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the Army Reserve from 
25 September 1987 and was discharged from DEP on 26 July 1988.  On 26 July 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

On 3 October 1988, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for his advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31C00 (Single Channel Radio Operator).  On 26 January 1989, he was advanced to pay grade    E-2, which was the highest pay grade he achieved.

On 6 March 1989, the applicant was listed as being AWOL.  On 19 March 1989, the applicant was returned to military control at Fort Gordon.

On 20 March 1989, the applicant again went AWOL.  He was returned to military control on 6 April 1989 and was held at the Fort Gordon Stockade in pre-trial confinement. 

On 11 April 1989, he was charged with violation of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 6 to 19 March 1989 and from 20 March to 6 April 1989. 

His records do not contain a copy of any counseling statement by legal counsel or a copy of his request for discharge. 

On 14 April 1989, the unit and intermediate commanders recommended he be approved for a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service (presumably under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200).  On 18 April 1989, the senior commander also recommended approval of a UOTHC discharge.  On 24 April 1989, the separation authority approved his separation with a UOTHC discharge.

On 2 May 1989, he was discharged with a UOTHC for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 8 months and 2 days of active service and had 27 days lost time during two periods of AWOL.  He never completed his military training and was still in a “trainee” status at the time of his discharge.  He was also assigned RE codes of RE-3 and 3C.

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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 and 3C indicate that the applicant would need a waiver from a recruiting official to reenlist.

On 19 July 1990, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review 
Board (ADRB) seeking a upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant personally appeared before that board to plead his case in person.  However, on 
12 February 1993 that board denied his request. 

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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Notwithstanding the absence of evidence in his record of meeting with his military counsel and a request for an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10 AR 635-200, the Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.

3.  The Board concluded that the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time of enlistment, with an apparent lack of maturity is accepted by the Board.  Further, his good post service conduct and actions are commendable.  However, neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of the offenses and therefore are not sufficiently  mitigating to warrant relief. 

5.  Since the change in reason for his discharge is denied, there is no basis for removal or change of the RE codes assigned in his case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to grant 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___  __TDH__   ___CJS__  DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029450	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890502	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A123.00	
2.	A01.00	
3.	A93.01	
4.		
5.		
6.