MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            27 May 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021752

	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	
	Ms. Camilla Pugh		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was advised by military counsel that if he agreed to an UOTHC discharge that his military benefits would not be withheld and that he would be released from the service without repercussions.  The applicant also contends that he was a good soldier until he started having family problems which drove him to going AWOL.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 July 1971.  He was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) on 22 March 1973.

During his service he was AWOL from 10-27 June 1972 and 17 August 1972 to 21 February 1973.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL.

He requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial.  He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

The appropriate authority approved his request and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
22 March 1973 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 credited with 
1 year, 1 month, and 4 days total active service and 207 days lost time 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 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.

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

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 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.

2.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contention.  However, his absence for which court-martial charges were preferred against him is too serious, and his service was too undistinguished, for equitable relief to be appropriate.  He acknowledged the loss of benefits when he requested discharge in lieu of court-martial trial.

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

ew______  mw_____  klw _____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021752	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 May 27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.