MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029788

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that he had not used drugs until he entered the Army and was sent to Germany.  He was introduced to drugs at a young age and
it was the drugs that caused him to rob the dealer.  He further states that he is drug free and has been that way for the past 2 ½ years and that he has a family now to support.

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

He was born on 11 November 1955.  On 14 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years with no prior military service.  He completed his initial training and was assigned to Germany.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 27 November 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order, impersonating a military Criminal Investigator, one count of aggravated assault, two counts of assault and for stealing a knife.

A mental and physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 1 December 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 26 December 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge certificate under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 15 January 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 
2 years, 7 months and 2 days of creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, 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-martial.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 17 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provision 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the applicant’s use of drugs and the applicant was not charged with drug use.

4.  The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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

__emw___  __ewl___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029788	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790115	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.