MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           25 May 2000					
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031552

	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
Mr. David H. Keller		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:
	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement to support his request; however, he submits a letter from his brother which tells the Board that he is a very good person and a productive member of society.

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

He entered active duty on 1 September 1981 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas.

While at Fort Bliss, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment twice under Article 15, UCMJ:  on 3 December 1982 for failure to obey a lawful order, and on 2 March 1983 for failure to report to his appointed place of duty.

On 7 March 1983, the applicant’s battalion commander barred him from reenlistment for having a record of nonjudicial punishment and a poor attitude.

On 27 April 1983, the applicant went AWOL en route to an overseas assignment to Korea.  He was returned to military control at Fort Ord, California, on 13 June 1983.

On 20 July 1983, the applicant was formally charged with AWOL from 27 April 1983 to 13 June 1983.  He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He sated that he did not desire further rehabilitation and had no desire for further military service.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of a UOTHC discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 3 August 1983, the separation authority, a brigadier general, approved the request and directed the applicant be issued a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

The applicant was discharged on 16 August 1983 with 1 year, 9 months and 28 days of creditable active service and 48 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.

On 28 April 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, denied the applicant’s request for 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, 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show that he wished to avoid a court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  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.

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

__eja___  __ewl____  __klw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031552	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000525	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830816	
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.