MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079969

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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.

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

On 17 July 1979, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).  His record documents no acts or valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).

The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two occasions for the offenses indicated:  
30 November 1980, for failing to report to his unit within 2 hours after an alert notification; and 15 February 1981, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2 to on or about 18 February 1981.

On 13 April 1981, the applicant departed AWOL, and remained away for 
320 days until returning to military control on 26 February 1982.  On 2 March 1982, he was charged with a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for this period of AWOL.  

On 3 March 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, its effects, and the possible effects of receiving an UOTHC discharge, he voluntarily requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

On 24 March 1982, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge.  The separation authority also directed that the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 
9 September 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial after completing a total of 
1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service, and having accrued 337 days of time lost due to AWOL.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

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 evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense under the UCMJ.

2.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 

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

__RJW__  __WDP _  __LMB___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079969	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820909	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	In Lieu of Trail by CM	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7100	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.