MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 November 2002   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077508

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was very young and foolish at that time in his life. He contends that his discharge has haunted him for almost 20 years, that he has heart disease and that it would be beneficial to obtain medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

The applicant enlisted on 15 June 1982 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training and was transferred to Germany for duty as an armor crewman.

On 17 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 6 months).

On 23 August 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction and disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 6 months) and extra duty. 

The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 12 September 1983 and returned to military control on 21 September 1983.  He went AWOL again on 
4 October 1983 and returned to military control on 4 November 1983.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 7 November 1983.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

On 8 November 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the DVA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  Additionally, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 8 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 December 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 1 year and  5 months of total active service and had 40 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 contention that he was young and foolish at that time in his life is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 19 years old at the time when he executed his voluntary request for discharge. 

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he has heart disease and that it would be beneficial to obtain medical treatment from the DVA.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining medical benefits.

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments and 40 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The Board also determined that his service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge. 

4.  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.  

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separations were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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.

7.  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

FNE____  LE______  TL______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077508	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021121	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19831223	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service in lieu of court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.