MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            16 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031886

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelly		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a 
general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that whenever he sought a quick release from
the military, he was informed that an undesirable discharge would be automatically changed to a general discharge after one year.  The applicant states that he submitted a voluntary attachment in support of his application.  However, this attachment is not attached to the application when the analyst received it.

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

He entered active duty on 15 October 1973 for a period of 3 years.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 15 October 1974 for being AWOL from 4 February 1974 to 16 May 1974 and from 24 May 1974 to 8 October 1974.

On 18 October 1974, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  The applicant also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he stated that he did not like the Army and that it was no place for him.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 23 October 1974 and was found qualified for separation.

On 6 November 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 14 November 1974.  He had a total
of 5 months, and 5 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge with its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
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 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 VA benefits.

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.  

3.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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.

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

FKM____  RVO_____  SK_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031886	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19741114	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.