MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           6 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031509

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes that his discharge should be upgraded because he has been an outstanding citizen and has not been involved in any criminal activity since his discharge.  

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

That on 9 December 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  On 29 March 1981, he was assigned to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

On 3 August 1983, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana during the period 
6-20 June 1983.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 90 days), forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 90 days) and 45 days extra duty.  

On 27 September 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense(s) for which he was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

However, the available records do not contain the document that shows the specific charges that were preferred against the applicant for which he requested a discharge for the good of the service.  

On 5 October 1983, the applicant’s unit commander and intermediate commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UOTHC discharge. 
On 7 October 1983, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC.

On 18 October 1983, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 10 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.  He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of 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 charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although, an honorable or general discharge was authorized, 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 this requirement.

2.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although the paperwork in connection with the charge(s) is missing, he would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  The evidence available shows that he consulted with defense counsel and signed a statement indicating that he had been informed that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and the ramifications of receiving such a discharge.  He voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.  The Board has presumed regularity and he has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  The Board took into consideration the applicant’s contention that he has been a model citizen since being separated from active duty.  The Board commends the applicant for his good behavior.  However, good post service behavior does not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

4.  The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both correct.

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

__cmf___  __emw__  __jpi_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031509	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000706	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831018	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.