MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             23 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999034399

	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. Joyce A. Wright		                         Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the VA and the military regards his discharge as a dishonorable discharge and that he was informed that they see his undesirable discharge (Other Than Honorable) as being no different.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed or lost during the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show that he enlisted on 22 January 1968.

The applicant’s court-martial charges are unavailable for review.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that on 16 February 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had a total of 
2 years, 6 months, and 4 days of creditable service and 201 days of lost time 
due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board  (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 13 May 1974.  The ADRB determined that his
discharge was proper and denied his request on 2 May 1975. 

The applicant reapplied to the ADRB on 27 July 1999 for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations (15 years).  This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 10 August 1999.

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.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 

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

RVO____  EB______  RJW_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034399	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000223	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710216	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.