MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032174

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was given the option of requesting to be discharged and going home or staying in Korea and being tried by court-martial.  In support of his appeal, he submits a certificate of successful completion of the Fiber Optic Cable Engineering Seminar dated 8 January 1998, two Employee Recognition Statement dated 5  August 1997 and 31 May 1996, a certificate of successful completion of the CommScope Fiber Optic Cable Engineering Seminar dated 25 March 1997, a certificate of completion from Fred Prior Seminars dated 14 August 1996, a letter from a friend dated 20 May 1996, a certificate of graduation from the National Cable Television Institute dated 2 April 1987, a Letter of Commendation dated 27 November 1984.

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

On 1 November 1977, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a tactical wire operations specialist.  He completed his 3-year tour of duty and on 9 December 1980, he reenlisted in the Army for 6 years in the pay grade of E-4.

The applicant was counseled on 21 October 1982 and 2 November 1982 for missing formation and for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  He was told that his behavior would not be tolerated and he was sent to the first sergeant for appropriate action.

He was counseled again on 9 November 1982 for coming in late from an overnight pass.  He was informed that he had violated pass privilege policy and that his continued failure to follow policy would result in action being taken against him under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

The applicant was counseled again on 17 November 1982 for missing formation and for being late for work call.  As punishment, he lost his pass privileges for 14 days.

On 20 November 1982, charges were preferred against the applicant and he was referred to trial by a special court-martial.  He was charged with two specifications of failure to obey a lawful order and two specifications of failure to have in his possession a valid liberty pass.  He was also charged with assaulting another soldier, being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and two specifications of failure to go to his appointed placed of duty.

On 14 December 1982, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he submitted a request for 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 appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 21 December 1982.  Accordingly, on 29 December 1982, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, 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 completed 5 years and 21 days of total active service.

There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's good post-service conduct it is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.

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 this 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

___sk___  __ja_____  ___reb__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032174	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/12/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	689	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  713	144.7110	
2.  716	144.7300	
3.  725	144.7600	
4.		
5.		
6.