MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015457

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was discharged for being absent without leave (AWOL).  He would like to see if he could obtain an honorable discharge.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 11 February 1970.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94A (Food Service Apprentice).

On 29 January 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 14 September – 10 December 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $25 pay for 3 months.

On 27 July 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 20 April –24 June 1971.

On an unknown date, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation   635-200 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 5 August 1971, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 12 August 1971, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 9 months and 22 days of creditable active service and had 252 days of lost time. 

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.

On 14 November 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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 provisions 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.

3.  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

__SAC___  __FKM___  __MDM___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015457	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/08/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, Ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.