MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032471

	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. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, 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:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.  (Analyst Note:  The applicant did not specify the type of upgrade).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had no intention of going AWOL, but his wife ran off with his son and he had to find them and bring them home.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 24 October 1973.  He completed training as a field artillery crewman and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  

On various dates between May 1974 and April 1975, the applicant received four nonjudicial punishments for being absent without leave (AWOL) for a total of 19 days.

Charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 9 June 1975 to 14 October 1975.  He requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 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 be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA if an undesirable discharge were issued.  

On 31 October 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 26 November 1975.  He had 1 year and 8 months of creditable service and 156 days of lost time.

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

3.  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.

4.  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

INW____  SK______  EJA_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032471	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19751126 	
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.