MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031229

	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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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:  The applicant states in effect, that on the night he committed the acts which led to his discharge, he was not acting in a rational frame of mind.  He states that he was very young and going through a rather difficult time.  His wife at that time was transferred to Germany, it took almost, 
2 years for his transfer to go through.  Upon his arrival to Germany his wife informed him that she was having a relationship with another soldier.  The applicant continues to say that he was overwhelmed with anger about his situation with his estranged wife.  The applicant states that he gave a party to celebrate his reenlistment.  After his party, his friends went to a Café in Germany where he claims that Turkish drug dealer attacked them.  Upon hearing what happen to his friends he snapped.  He further states that everything that had occurred recently in his life coupled with this incident was more than he could handle.  He prepared some flammable liquids and had one of his friends to take him by the club.  It was at that time he tried to burn them out.  He attacked the three men who had attacked his friends and he attacked the dog, he then  returned home and got ready for work.  He was arrested and later accepted a chapter 10 discharge. 

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

On 5 May 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  The applicant successfully completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91P10 (X-Ray Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 21 January 1982, the applicant’s record indicates that he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the wrongful possession of an ounce more or less of Marijuana.  The particulars are missing from his file. 

On 31 May 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the attempt to willfully and maliciously set on fire an occupied structure by throwing Molotov cocktails at the right side of the structure entrance.

After consulting with legal counsel the applicant 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 declined to do so.

On an unknown date, the applicant was found mentally and physically fit for retention.

On 18 October 1984, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Certificate of Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 24 December 1984, 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 had completed 3 years, 7 months and 20 days of creditable active service. 
 
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 charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

On 5 March 1999, the Army Discharge Review denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 22 years old at the time of the incident.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed 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

__fe____  __kak___  __ra____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031229	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841224	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.000	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.