MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031362

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to at least a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That mistakes made as a child should be allowed to be corrected as an adult and that one should only pay for a mistake just so long.  He further states that his discharge should be upgraded because of his current continuous and meritorious service in the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG). In support of his application he submits a copy of a request for a waiver to enlist in the OHARNG and his DD Form 214. 

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

He enlisted in Columbus, Ohio on 14 April 1981 for a period of 4 years, a cash enlistment bonus of $5,000, and training as an airborne infantryman.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia on 19 November 1981.

The applicant went AWOL on 24 December 1981 and remained absent until 14 January 1982.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 26 January 1982 and the punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, restriction (suspended) and a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 (suspended).

He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 27 April 1982 and was transferred to Fort Wainwright, Alaska on 24 January 1983.

He went AWOL again on 2 February 1983 and remained absent in a deserter status until he surrendered to military authorities in Columbus, Ohio on 12 December 1983.  He was then transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky where charges were preferred against him on 15 December 1983.

After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to the request for discharge, and that he had been advised of the implications attached to it.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and declined a separation physical examination.

The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request and he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 19 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 7 months, and 4 days of total active service and had 334 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for and upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 

The request for waiver submitted by the applicant is dated 6 November 1988 and indicates that the applicant applied for a waiver of 29 days of lost time for the purpose of enlisting in the OHARNG. The request is incomplete and does not indicate if any final action was taken.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Such a request is strictly voluntary on the part of the person who has been charged and they must indicate that they have been briefed on the consequences of accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions and must also indicate that they have not been coerced by anyone to request such a discharge.  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 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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  There are no automatic provisions for upgrading an administrative discharge nor are there any indications in the available records to show that the applicant was experiencing personal problems of such a nature that would justify his going AWOL.  Therefore, his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his extensive absence during a relatively short period of service and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.

5.  The Board also notes that the applicant applied for a waiver of 29 days of lost time when in fact he had approximately 334 days of lost time.  Accordingly, the Board finds that his discharge under other than honorable conditions appropriately characterizes his service. 

6.  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

___sk___  ___rvo __  ___le ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031362	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/01/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/A70.00/GOOD OF SVC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.