MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033749

	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. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve and he was told that his discharge would be upgraded. 

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

On 18 September 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years at the age of 21.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 13F (Fire Support Specialist) and he was assigned to overseas duty in Korea for his first permanent duty station.

The service record shows that the highest rank the applicant attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.  In addition, there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition recorded in the applicant’s file.  

The available records are void of any disciplinary history , other than the fact that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on 19 March 1983, and there is no separation packet on file.  Therefore, the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s separation were not available to the Board for review.

The evidence of record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant.  This documents verifies that he was discharged, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In addition, it indicates that that the applicant had completed 
1 year, 6 months, and 14 days of active military service at the time of his separation.

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations.

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.

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 found the applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time of his misconduct was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board noted that the applicant was over 21 years of age when he entered service and he was over 23 years of age at the time of his discharge.  

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was told his discharge would be upgraded.  However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to upgrade discharges automatically.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Board found no evidence to support such a conclusion in this case.  

3.  Although the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army, the Board did note that his record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which the applicant authenticated with his signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  

4.  The evidence of record shows that on 1 April 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, he would have been required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In the absence of information to the contrary, 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.  Therefore, the Board concluded relief is not warranted in this case. 

5.  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.

6.  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

___sk___  ___kak__  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033749	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/04/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service/In Lieu of Trial by C-M	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.