MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030421

	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 Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he knows it was his doing that brought the separation about.  He states that he was not a perfect person, but the punishment does not fit the crime in his case.  He was a 19 year old kid that felt he was abused during the period of time he spent in the service. He had personal and family problems.  He would like to have his discharge upgraded, so he can live a good life.  He also wants to clear up the misconduct of which he was accused because his father went to his grave, knowing that his son received a less than honorable discharge.  He provides a detailed letter of explaination as supporting documentation. 

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

On 6 November 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 
18 January 1980, he completed his basic combat training.  He was recycled once in his advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B10 (Medical Specialist).  He was then assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana, on 14 March 1980.

On 10 December 1980, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave from 1 to 27 October 1980.  His approved sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of  $200.00 pay for 1 month, and to be confined at hard labor for 30 days.  He served his confinement at the Installation Detention Facility, Fort Polk.  

In accordance with DA Form 4187 (Personnel Actions), the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-2, on 17 March 1981.

On 30 April 1981, the applicant’s commander initiated a bar to reenlistment.  As the basis for his recommendation, he cited the applicant’s SPCM adjudicated on 10 December 1980, for being AWOL and his pending SPCM, which could result in a bad conduct discharge (BCD).  On 7 May 1981, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

However, the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge and the actions by command are not in his records.

On 24 June 1981, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provision of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  He had 1 year, 6 months and 1 day of creditable service, with 48 days lost time for being AWOL and in military confinement.  The applicant did signed 

his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for separation under AR 635-200, chapter 10.

There is no indication in the applicant’s record that he sought a discharge upgrade through the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  

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 have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A UOTHC discharge 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.  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 Board notes that the facts and circumstances concerning his discharge are not in his file.  However, in connection with a discharge under chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, he would have been charged with one or more offenses of violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which could have resulted in a punitive discharge.  He would have been required to consult with legal counsel and could have requested an administrative discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He would have been required to have admitted guilt to the offense(s).  The Board 
also noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly completed DD Form 214 which was authenticated by the applicant.  In view of the foregoing, the Board presumed regularity in the discharge process.

3.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that his service mitigated unacceptable conduct or performance of duty.

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

__wtm___  __ra____  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030421	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000420	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	CHAPTER 10	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981 06 24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.