MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           26 March 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063909

	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:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 was trained to be a paratrooper and nothing else mattered to him.  Following an injury, he was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and a “leg unit.”  This caused his morale to suffer.  He was young and immature, and he left Fort Sill and went back to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on his own.  He has matured now and realizes that he should have handled things differently.

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he served honorably in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) from November 1977 through July 1978.  He also served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 1 August 1978 through 4 February 1982.  He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 
13B (Cannon Crewman).

In October 1978, the applicant attended the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia.  On 2 December 1978, he was assigned to the 82nd Air Borne Division, Fort Bragg.  On 5 February 1982, while assigned to Fort Bragg, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for a period of 3 years and the station of choice option (Fort Sill).  On 4 June 1982, he was reassigned to Fort Sill for permanent duty. 

On 2 March 1983, the applicant left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Sill on 22 June 1983.

The applicant's records no longer contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process.  However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 15 February 1985, shows the applicant was charged with the above AWOL offense on 28 June 1983.  On 
29 June 1983, 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same date, he was placed on excess leave pending discharge.  

On 7 July 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with a UOTHC discharge.  On 12 July 1983, the applicant's intermediate commander also recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge.  On 2 August 1983, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge.  

The applicant's records contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that indicates that on 9 August 1983, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a UOTHC discharge.  It also shows that he completed 4 years, 8 months and 9 days of active military service and he had 113 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

On 15 February 1985, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request 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 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 available records show that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.  Some of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process are missing.  However, his records show the commission of at least one offense at Fort Sill that was punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  The applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   

3.  The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

4.  The Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.  Furthermore, at the time of his discharge, he was 23 years of age.

5.  There is no evidence in the available record to indicate that the applicant was ever injured while serving in the military.  The applicant reenlisted and selected Fort Sill as his station of choice for permanent duty.  His explanation of the events leading to his discharge does not conform to the facts available in his records.  The applicant reenlisted for an assignment at Fort Sill and, following his period of AWOL, he returned to Fort Sill, not Fort Bragg.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_GDP____  __ DSJ_  __REB___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063909	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20020326 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830809	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.