MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 February 2002                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064161

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not go before a court.  He made a statement, saying that he would leave the service for the good of the service.  He also states, that he wrote that statement because he was on drugs and alcohol.  

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

On 9 December 1969, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years, with 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of prior active service.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C10 (Infantryman Indirect Fire Crewman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

Between February and June 1972, the applicant accepted five nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two occasions of failure to repair, for two occasion of dereliction of duty and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 January to 7 February 1972.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty, and a reduction to pay grade E-1.   

On 3 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 24 May to 3 October 1974, from 5 to 14 November 1974 and from 7 January to 1 March 1975.

On 14 March 1975, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant acknowledged by submitting this request for discharge, that he was acknowledging that he understood the elements of the offenses charged and that he was guilty of the charges that were preferred against him.  The applicant waived further rehabilitation, because he had no desire to perform further military service.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf.  The applicant stated, that he wrote a statement in his behalf; however, the statement is missing from his file.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant mentally fit for retention.

On 24 March 1975, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 27 March 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 4 years, 
8 months and 10 days of creditable active military service during this enlistment and 219 days of time lost. 

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.  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.

3.  The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  Even after appropriate and proper consultation, the applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a discharge UOTHC.  

4.  The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.  

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jh____  __kak___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064161	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020205	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750327	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.