MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  14 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002074890

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		Member	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		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 characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.APPLICANT STATES:  That he was having family problems and went AWOL trying to resolve them.  His spouse was pregnant and they were having financial problems.  His mother was in Texas and ill and he was the only child and felt that it was his duty to be with her.  He did not have enough funds to support his family and needed to depart the Army to take care of them.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted on 1 April 1980, as a Pershing Missile Crewman.  The applicant failed to complete training and was AWOL effective 20 July 1980.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 9 September 1980, for being AWOL from 20 July to 27 August 1980 (38 days).

On 9 September 1980, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he acknowledged guilt of the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 25 September 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 6 October 
1980.  

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 24 September 2001.  However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations.  This Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 28 May 2002.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

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 this 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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mp____  __mb___  __jp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074890	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19801006	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	360/191	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.