MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 February 2002                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR200165660

	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. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like his discharge upgraded to a general discharge because he was having family problems when he was in the military.  He was attached to Fort Sheridan IL; to try to get a hardship discharge.  He states that the evidence of him trying to get a hardship discharge should be in his files.  

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

On 2 February 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Tactical Wire Operator Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

Between May 1976 and October 1977, the applicant accepted three nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order and for two occasions of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 
16 July to 15 August 1977 and from 13 September to 6 October 1977.  His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-2.   

The applicant’s record indicates that between January and February 1978, the applicant was attached to Fort Sheridan, IL, pending application for a hardship discharge.  However, the particulars are missing from his file.  It appears that the applicant’s request for a hardship discharge was denied.  

On 3 May 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 18 February to 26 April 1978. 

On 4 May 1978, a physical examination found the applicant fit for retention.

On 5 May 1978, 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, that he understood the elements of the offense charged.  The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged that he understood, 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, but decline to do so.  

On 25 May 1978, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s willful and persistent AWOLs. 

On 31 May 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 4 August 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He completed 2 years, 1 month and 17 days of creditable active military service. 

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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.

3.  The applicant alleges, that he went AWOL because he was having family problems and that he requested a hardship discharge because of those problems.  The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's family problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests. 

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

__jhl___  __rjw___  __rtd___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065660	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020226	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780804	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.