MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 March 2002                           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062888

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received an Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and the Multinational Force and Observers Medal (MFO Medal) for his service during a peacekeeping mission in Egypt between 1981-1982.  He also states that the military was a hardship for his wife, their children and other family members.  His wife was young and it was difficult for her to leave her mother alone with her father who was ill and dying.  He requested a compassionate reassignment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, but it could not be done because of “red tape.”  He felt he had exhausted all alternatives. 

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

That on 12 November 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  On 20 November 1980, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and he was awarded MOS 11B.  He also completed basic airborne training at Fort Benning.  On 27 February 1981, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

On 23 September 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for making a false official statement when he stated to his commander that another service member had nothing to do with the marihuana found in his [applicant’s] car.  In fact, he knew the statement was false.  His punishment included forfeiture of $279.00 pay per month for 2 months and correctional custody in the Correctional Custody Facility for 30 days.

The applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from 
4 January 1983 until he surrendered to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Bragg on 15 March 1983.  On 18 March 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for this AWOL offense.  On the same date, the applicant 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 he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same date, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending approval of his request.

On 23 March 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  He stated that the applicant's conduct had rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct discharge.  He also stated that, based on the applicant's previous record, punishment would have a minimal rehabilitative effect and that he believed a discharge would be in the best interest of all concerned.  On 23 March 1983, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval.  On 31 March 1983, the separation authority directed that the applicant be reduced to pay grade E-1 and separated with a UOTHC discharge.  

On 18 April 1983, the applicant was separated in absentia 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 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days of active military service and he had 70 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 

The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was awarded the AAM, the Army Service Ribbon, the Parachutist Badge, the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge (Rifle-M16), and the Expert Qualification Badge (Hand Grenade). 

There is no evidence that the applicant ever requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgrade his discharge during that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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.  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 this 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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service, to include his awards, and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge.

4.  There is no evidence that the applicant requested reassignment or that he had personal problems and sought assistance through his chain of command.  Neither is there any evidence that he ever served in the Middle East or received the MFO Medal.

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

__INW __  __RJW__  __GJW__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062888	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830418	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A04.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.