MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:             9 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999032546

	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. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  That his “undesirable discharge” was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse actions.  He further states that he was a young man when the mistakes occurred and now his discharge is affecting his adult life.  Therefore, he would like to see his discharge changed in order get on with his life and better support his family by getting a VA loan.  This would enable him to buy a house for his family and live the American way.

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

He entered the Delayed Entry Program of the Army Reserve from September
1984 through August 1985.  On 2 August 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army
for 3 years.  He completed both his basic combat training and his advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Infantryman) at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

On 22 November 1985, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, for duty in his MOS. On 2 February 1986, he was advanced to pay grade E-2, which was the highest pay grade he achieved.

On 19 July 1986, the applicant was listed as absent without leave (AWOL).  He surrendered to military authorities on 15 February 1987 and was held at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He was charged with violation of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 18 February 1987 for being AWOL from 19 July 1986 to 15 February 1987. 

On 18 February 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court martial, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He also waived his rights to a discharge physical with no further indication in his record of any outstanding medical or mental conditions.  On 2 March 1987, the separation authority approved his separation with an UOTHC.

On 26 March 1987, he was discharged with a UOTHC for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 1 year and 29 days of creditable service and had 211 days lost time.

On 26 June 1999, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a upgrade of his discharge.  On 29 September 1999, the Board denied his request. 

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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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.  While the record indicates the applicant did not commit multiple offenses while on active duty, his long period of AWOL was not consistent with the Army standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance by military personnel.

3.  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. There is no indication that he received less than competent legal counsel or that his request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The applicant's request for a Chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

6.  Entitlement to veteran’s benefits is not a matter under the purview of this Board, but rests with the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Further, the lack of entitlements does not provide a basis upon which to grant an upgrade of a discharge.

7.  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__  __DSJ___  __CJS___  DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032546	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19870326	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	71.00	
2.	93.01	
3.	9309	
4.	94.07	
5.		
6.