MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033019

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 condition (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his character of discharge was too harsh, his overall service included duty in Vietnam, and that alone is more deserving of an honorable discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The applicant maintains that the character of his discharge is too harsh and that his overall service is more deserving of an honorable type discharge.  In so doing, he points out that he did complete over one year of service in Vietnam.

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

He was born on 9 December 1950.  He completed 11 years of formal education.
On 6 March 1970, the applicant was inducted in the Regular Army for 2 years.
He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B10 (Military Policeman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 18 December 1970,  while assigned to a unit in Vietnam the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for possession of heroin.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 4 months and confinement at hard labor for 2 months (confinement dropped ).

On 28 May 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for two specifications for being off limits (city of Bien Hoa and the village of Cogido)(Republic of Vietnam) without authority.  His was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 30 days and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 2 months ( CHL suspended for 6 months).

On 28 June 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications for stealing a wallet and for possessing 2 tablets of a habit forming narcotic drug (Immonoctal).

On 2 July 1971, 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.

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

On 8 July 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $15.00 pay and 2 hours extra duty per day for 7 days.

On 7 August 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 
25 August 1971, 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 1 year and 5 months of creditable active service.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 shows 12 days of lost time.

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 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 30 April 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his 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. 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 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

__mkp___  __bje___  __ewl___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033019	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710825	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.