MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 March 2000     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031979

	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.

	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it was his understanding that he would receive a general under honorable conditions discharge at the time of his discharge.  He contends that at the time of his discharge he was under heavy stress with his fiancé and he tried to maintain his military obligation during a difficult situation.  In support of his application, he submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States); a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty); and thirteen letters of reference.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 May 1976 for a period of three years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri as a physical activity specialist.

On 14 February 1977 and 15 April 1977, the applicant received nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for being absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of two days.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 13 January 1978 for being AWOL from 6 September 1977 to 5 January 1978 (121 days).  He requested discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if an undesirable discharge were issued.  The applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

On 6 February 1978, the unit and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with an UOTHC discharge. 
The separation authority approved the applicant’s request on 15 February 1978 and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 March 1978, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of creditable service and 123 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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.  

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 law and regulations.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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

JLP_____  OWT____  CJP_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031979	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780310	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.