MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032979

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 was 17 years old at the time and he asked to be released from the Army and to be given a chapter 5 discharge.  He further states that he did not receive a court martial by a board or panel.  He was told that he would get a chapter 5 discharge.

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

He was born on 3 November 1962.  He completed 10 years of formal education.
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 1980, for 3 years with no prior service.

The charge sheets with allied papers are missing from the applicant’s record; however, the Commanding Officer’s endorsement states that the applicant received two Article 15s, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 24 July 1980 and on 2 October 1980 and a summary court-martial was pending, on which the chapter 10 action was based.

On 10 October 1980, 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.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 5 November 1980, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 
14 November 1980, 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 9 months and 14 days creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, 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.  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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

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 type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__gdp___  __clg___  __cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032979	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19801105	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.