MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            21 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032137

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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:  That he was a military policeman who was set up and caught with marijuana and he desires to have his discharge upgraded.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That although the facts and circumstances are not present in his records, the punishment was too harsh for the offense.

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

The applicant enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 16 February 1972 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed his basic training at Fort Ord, California and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia to undergo advanced individual training (AIT) as a shoe repairman.

It appears that he did not complete his AIT as a shoe repairman and was recycled to another AIT company to undergo training as a unit supply specialist.  While in AIT he went AWOL from 2 October to 3 October 1972.  He again went AWOL from 20 November to 17 December 1972 and nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on 5 March 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

On 27 March 1973 he was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington.  He arrived at Fort Lewis on 27 April 1973 and was assigned to a Military Police company for duty as a supply clerk.  His records show that he was placed in pre-trial confinement on 24 May 1973, less than a month after his arrival.

The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged on 25 July 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 2 months, and 15 days of total active service and had 85 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that 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.

2.  Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial requires a voluntary request on the part of the individual concerned.  Therefore, it appears that he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his records.

4.  While he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date, especially considering his otherwise undistinguished record of service. 

5.  The applicant’s contentions are not supported by the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application.  Therefore, there appears to be no basis for further relief in his case. 

6.  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

___hof___  __mw___  __dw ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032137	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/21	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/07/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  689 	144.7000/GOOD OF THE SVC	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.