MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032376

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he knows what he did was wrong, but he didn’t know that he would end up being put out of the Army.  He also states in effect that he was young and dumb, if he had to do it over again he would still be in the army.

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

He was born on 19 October 1950.  He completed 9 years of formal education. On 29 May 1968, the applicant was inducted in the Regular Army for 2 years with no prior service.  He completed basic combat training and Advance Individual Training and was awarded Military Occupational Specialty 94B10 (Cooks Helper).

The charge sheet with allied papers is missing from the applicant’s record; however,. the Commanding Officer stated that the applicant was being charged by him with larceny of $80.00 and was currently in the post stockade in pre-trial confinement.  The Commanding Officer also stated that the applicant was convicted on 2 counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and was sentenced to nine months on each charge which was suspended.

On 5 February 1969, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

A mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 12 February 1969, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 27 February 1969, 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.  He completed 6 months and 26 days of creditable active service and
had 62 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included 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 trail by court.  A discharge UOTHC 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 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 provision 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.  The Board is cognizant of the fact that the applicant was 18 years old when he was inducted but that factor does not warrant upgrading his discharge.

4.  The type of discharge 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

__rvo___  __aao___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032376	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690227	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.