MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031746

	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. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he made a mistake; that he has learned his lesson; that he is a good citizen and he wants his record cleared.  

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

On 26 January 1973, the applicant was ordered to involuntary active duty for a period of 2 years because of unsatisfactory participation as an obligated Reservist.  The applicant’s record indicates, that he did not report to active duty until 30 April 1973.  He was considered to be absent without leave (AWOL).  However, he was not punished for this AWOL period.  The applicant successfully completed Basic Combat Training.  

On 16 September 1973, while in Advanced Individual Training, he went AWOL.  He was returned to military control on 18 September 1973.  There is no evidence in his record to show that he was punished for this AWOL period.

On 12 March 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 October 1973 to 2 February 1974.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months, a reduction to pay grade E-1 and a forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 3 months. 

On 28 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 21 October 1974 to 27 March 1975.

On 4 April 1975, 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.  The applicant stated in effect, that he came into the Army to see what it was all about; that he had nothing against the Army, but if he is returned to duty he would probably do the same thing; that he understood that he would lose his benefits and that he would receive an undesirable discharge.  He further stated that if he did not get out of the service in a hurry he would go nuts.

On 16 April 1975, the applicant was found fit for retention.

On 7 May 1975, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 5 June 1975, 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. 

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 14 November 1985, 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.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's good post-service conduct; this factor, does not warrant the relief requested.

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

__rgh___  __mdm___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031746	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000329	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750605	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter10.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.