MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031152

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edwin S. Castle 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That during his time in the military he was not afforded the opportunity to receive rehabilitation for his drug problem, but now has the opportunity to share his experiences with others, especially the youth, by doing volunteer work as he works towards his degree in counseling.   

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

On 18 October 1984, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years, in the pay grade of E-3.  He completed OSUT (one station unit training) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Airborne training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 13 February 1985, the applicant’s company commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from         15-16 November 1984, and 3 December 1984 to 11 February 1985.

On 14 February 1985, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him, and that he understood the effects of receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

On 1 March 1985, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1, and the issuance of an UOTHC discharge.

On 20 March 1985, the applicant was separated with an UOTHC discharge under the above cited regulation.  His Report of Separation indicates he had       1 year, 9 months and 17 days of creditable service and 69 days of lost time.

On 11 October 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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 the charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 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.  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.  

2.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  The applicant voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in order to avoid trial by court-martial, his records provide no evidence that the applicant sought rehabilitation or help for his drug problem. 

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031152	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000302	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.