MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031023

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his “resignation,” the warrant officer that handled his discharge told him it would automatically be changed to at least a general discharge.  It was never changed.

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

He enlisted on 10 September 1970 for a period of 3 years.  Although his records are incomplete, it appears he never completed basic training due to AWOL.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that he was discharged on 27 May 1971 for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

The applicant was discharged at Fort Carson, Colorado, with 6 months and 
22 days of creditable service and 57 days of time lost.

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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically states that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

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 provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, is presumed to be administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations.  This Board also presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant’s discharge.  There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.

3.  The applicant’s request for a chapter 10 discharge tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

4.  The Board has noted the contention of the applicant in regard to an automatic upgrade of his discharge.  However, they are not supported either by the evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  An upgrade is not automatic and the merits of the case do not warrant an upgrade.

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

__mkp___  __gdp___  __tbr___  DENY APPLICATION

						Carl W. S. Chun
				      Director, Army Board for Correction
					         of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031023	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000510	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700910	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	142.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.