MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 20000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033448

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that sometimes people make mistakes but are forgiven.  He would like a chance to redeem himself in the Army but needs an upgrade in order to get back in.  He indicates that he knows he is not the best person in the world but he is also not the worst and is striving for perfection.

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

On 3 August 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was awarded military occupational specialty 11M (Bradley Fighting Vehicle Infantryman).  Upon completion of training he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first permanent duty station.

He arrived at Fort Hood in January 1994.  The record shows that the highest rank the applicant held while on active duty was private/E-2 and there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition recorded in the applicant’s service record.  

On 15 July 1994, the applicant departed his unit AWOL and on 15 August 1994 he was dropped from the rolls of his unit.  He remained away until he was apprehended by civil authorities in Bastrop, Texas on 24 May 1996.  He was then returned to military control at the Personnel and Support Battalion at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

On 29 May 1996, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant.  The charge was based on his violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL for 679 days, between 15 July 1994 and 24 May 1996.  

On 30 May 1996, after consulting legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200.  This request was made only after the applicant had been advised by counsel of the maximum permissible punishment, and of the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge.  

In his request the applicant attested to the fact that he fully understood he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs; that he may be deprived of veterans benefits under state and federal law; and that he could expect to encounter significant prejudice in civilian life based on his receiving an UOTHC discharge. 
On 28 June 1996, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for separation and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge.  Accordingly, on 
24 July 1996, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 3 days of creditable active military service, and having had accrued 679 days of time lost due to AWOL.

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 are 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.  

On 30 September 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.

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 Board noted the applicant’s desire to redeem himself and to again serve in the Army.  However, the Board concluded this factor does not mitigate his misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In addition, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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

___ra___  ___wtm__  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033448	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996/07/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.