MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           1 April 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081673

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		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 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his military records will support upgrading his general discharge.

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

He enlisted on 26 August 1976 with 2 years and 2 months of prior active service.  He was promoted to pay grade E-5 and served as a heavy anti-armor weapons crewman.

On 19 April 1984, the applicant had charges preferred against him for losing a .45 caliber pistol, valued at $233.90, through neglect, under Article 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 14 June 1984, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf along with that request.  In his statement he said that, although he could not be discharged as part of any court-martial sentence, he would still have a court-martial conviction which would prevent him from reenlisting.  He then admitted his guilt to the charge and requested that he be given a general discharge instead of an Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge based upon his 10 years of honorable, active service.  

That request was accepted by the appropriate authority and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate on 13 July 1984.

The applicant’s separation document shows that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal (three awards), the Korean Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Achievement Medal, and marksmanship badges.

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.

The Manual for Court-Martial, Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart, shows the maximum punishment for a violation of Article 108, UCMJ, when the value of the property lost through neglect is over $100.00. as a total forfeiture of pay, 1 year confinement, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was charged with an offense which (contrary to his contention) was punishable by a punitive discharge.  He admitted guilt to the charge and requested discharge in lieu of subjecting himself to the possibility of a punitive discharge and confinement.  There is no error or injustice in that scenario.

2.  To the contrary, an UOTHC discharge is normally issued when a request for discharge in lieu of court-martial is approved.  The applicant was granted leniency at the time of his separation when he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

3.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence or argument to be addressed by the Board.

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

___teo __  ___tbr___  ____aao_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081673	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030401	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A71.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.