MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            28 July 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026890

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was inequitable and that he is very supportive of the Veterans Organization in his community.  He also states that he respects the Armed Forces and wants his discharge upgraded to better himself and represent all Veterans.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1992.

Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 
7 April to 28 May 1995 for 52 days.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities on 29 May 1995.

On 5 June 1995 he requested discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial.  He received counsel and acknowledged he understood he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable 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.

On 17 August 1995 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
5 September 1995 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 
2 years, 10 months, and 3 days total active service and 52 days lost time due to AWOL and civilian detainment. 

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and was denied his upgrade request on 4 June 1999 based on a records review.  He was advised he may reapply for a personal appearance hearing.

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 is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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, absence for 52 days for which court-martial charges have been 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:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

fne______  lem_____  mvt_____  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

		Loren G. Harrell
		Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026890	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 July 29	
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.	upgrade	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.