MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            8 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029835

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he needs an upgrade and wants his discharge upgraded to an HD.

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

On 22 July 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Mississippi Army National Guard and served continuously until ordered to active duty on 7 December 1990.  The applicant’s National Guard record shows that the highest rank he achieved was sergeant/E-5 and that he had earned the National Defense Service Medal, two Army Reserve Components Achievement Medals, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon.  The record documents no specific acts of valor or significant achievement; however, there is evidence that the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment in January 1989 which resulted in his reduction in rank to specialist/E-4.

On 7 December 1990,  the applicant reported for active duty at Fort Rucker, Alabama to perform duties in military occupational specialty 19E (Tank Crewman).  His active duty record shows that he completed only 6 months and 
14 days of credible active service on the period of service under review.  On 
3 May 1991, the applicant went AWOL from his unit; he was dropped from the unit rolls as a deserter on 2 June 1991, and remained away 342 days until 9 April 1992.  

While the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant would have had to admit guilt to the stipulated offense and to acknowledge that he understood the ramifications of receiving an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

The DD Form 214 also documents that the applicant was separated on 26 May 1992 with a UOHC discharge after completing 6 months and 14 days of credible active service, and having accrued 342 days of time lost due to AWOL.

On 21 May 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper and equitable in all respects. 

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 are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial.  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 record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  

2.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

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 the aforementioned 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

__klw ___  __fkm___  __owt ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029835	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/09/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/05/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.  807	A92.17	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.