MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:   3 June 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999023445

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr.  		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  He was a confused kid and did not realize the error of his ways. He had problems adapting to the military and he also had personal problems.

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

That on 7 June 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor).  He completed basic and advanced individual training and on 3 October 1979, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

On 1 December 1979, the applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.  On 21 November 1984, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New Jersey. 

On 21 November 1984, court-martial charges were preferred for the period of AWOL from 1 December 1979 - 21 November 1984.  On 21 November 1984, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offense for which he was charged could lead to a UOTHC discharge.  He stated that he understood the ramifications of a UOTHC discharge, and he declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 30 November 1984, the applicant’s unit commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge.  On 3 December 1984, the intermediate commander recommended separation with a UOTHC.  On 10 December 1984, competent authority approved his request.  

On 11 January 1985, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 7 months, and 15 days of active military service and he had 1,815 days lost time due to being AWOL. 

The record does not indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  Although, an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was then considered appropriate.

The applicant has not yet made application to the Army Discharge Review Boards (ARBA).

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and that he had personal problems.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age, and determined that he was no less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3.  Further, the Board determined that there were other legitimate avenues he could have pursued in resolving his personal problems in lieu of going AWOL.  

4.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Support Group, St. Louis should notify the applicant of the following:  

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has reviewed his case and has made the above determination.  However, a review of his records indicates he has not yet filed an appeal to the ADRB.  He may request a records review, with the ADRB and if the Board votes to deny relief, he may reapply to the ADRB for a personal appearance hearing.  He may request a hearing in Washington, D.C. or before the Traveling Panel of the ADRB visiting a city within 300 miles of his home.  Should he later resubmit an application to the ADRB, it would be his best interest to attach a copy of his letter of notification as evidence of the date of the ABCMR action.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023445	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990603	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850111	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CHAPTER 10  	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He was young and he had personal problems.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.