MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031652

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  In effect, he feels that he did not receive due process, nor was he advised of his legal rights and for that reason his discharge should be upgraded.

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

On 18 January 1982, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial
for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 August to 27 October 1981.
His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 3 months,
60 days restriction, 90 days hard labor and reduction to pay grade E-1.

On 22 September 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order and for
being disrespectful in language to a superior non-commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $144.00 pay and 7 days extra duty.

On 25 May 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 October 1982 to 20 May 1983.

On 25 May 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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 he declined to do so.

On 8 June 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 20 June 1983, 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 completed 2 years and 6 days of creditable active service and
he had 291 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, 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.

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 provision 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 stated on the DD Form 149, that he was not advised of his legal rights.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was afforded legal counsel.

4.  The type of discharge 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

__gdp___  __clg___  __cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031652	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830620	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.