APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was drunk at the time of the incident and does not remember going absent without leave (AWOL). EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 7 December 1954. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 30 August 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C10 (Motor Transportation Operator). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. Between 12 December 1974 and 2 June 1975, the applicant accepted four nonjudicial punishments, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for six occasions of failure to repair and for being AWOL from 9 to 11 May and from 25 to 27 May 1975. His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-1. On 24 June 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 to 22 June 1975 and for breaking restriction. On 27 June 1975, a mental and a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention. On 28 June 1975, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so. On 15 July 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 18 July 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 22 days of creditable active service. 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. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. 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 the aforementioned requirement. 2. 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. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his allegation or request. 5. Therefore, 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director