MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           26 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082675

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  That his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that Staff Sergeant G____ did not submit his request for an extension of his leave and that he was never informed about the offenses that lead to his discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel declined to make comment.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 12 February 1980.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).  He reenlisted on 13 August 1982.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the period of 10 August 1983 through 22 December 1986 when apprehended by civilian authorities. 

On 29 December 1986, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge.  He acknowledged that there is no automatic upgrade or review of the characterization of his discharge.  He elected not to make a statement on his own behalf. 
 
The discharge authority accepted his request and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge.  

The applicant was discharged on 2 February 1997 under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he had 3 years, 7 months, and 8 days of creditable service with 1231 days lost due to AWOL and 34 days of excess leave.  

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.  

The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request for an upgrade on his discharge.

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

__WTM__  __LE ___  __LF  ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082675	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030626	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Upgrade	
2.	Chapter 10	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.