MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034416

	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:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that several of his friends broke into his house and took jewelry and money.  He knew who they were and worked out a deal for them to repay him.  The military learned of the break-in and theft and asked him if he knew who the thieves were.  He indicated that he did not and because of this proceedings were begun to effect his dismissal from the Army because officials said he lied to them.  He regrets his mistake in not telling the truth to the investigators and having to leave the Army because at the time he intended to make the Army his career.  He indicates that his conduct since leaving the Army has been good and provides a record of his employment subsequent to his discharge and a letter in support of his application from his current employer.  

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

On 25 April 1979, while assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, he reenlisted in the Regular Army and began the period of service under review.  At the time of this reenlistment he had already completed 1 year, 4 months, and 16 days of active service, attained the rank of private first class/E-3, and held military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  

The available records do not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge.  The record also documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition on the part of the applicant.  

In addition, other than a 5 day period of AWOL from 5 to 9 April 1976 which is recorded in block 21 (time lost) of his Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (qualification record), there is no disciplinary history on file in the applicant’s service record. 

The evidence of record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his discharge.  This document shows that on 11 March 1981, the applicant was administratively separated , under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  At the time of his separation the applicant had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 12 days of his current enlistment and a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 27 days of active military service.  

The record contains a letter from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), dated 12 November 1981, which advises the applicant that efforts to reconstruct his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) were unsuccessful; therefore, there was insufficient documentation for the ADRB to conduct a review of his discharge and his case was being closed without action.  This letter did give the applicant the option to personally appear before the ADRB in order for his case to be reviewed.  However, there is no evidence to show any further action was ever taken on the case by the ADRB.

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 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.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for soldiers separating under these provisions.   

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 and congratulates the applicant on his good post service conduct.  However, this alone does not provide a basis for relief.  While the available records are void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army, the Board did note that there was a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file, which was issued to and signed by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  The evidence of record does show that the applicant 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 connection with such a discharge, he 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.  

3.  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. 

4.  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.

5.  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

__klw ___  ___tap __  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034416	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1981/03/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.