APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his DD Form 214, should be corrected to show that he served 6 months 15 days instead of 5 months and 7 days. 

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

The applicant was born on 5 August 1959.  He completed 
10 years of formal education.  On 16 February 1979, he  enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 31 (Category III).  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B0 (Infantryman).

On 8 August 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 
2 July to 7 August 1979.

On the same day, 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 by legal counsel 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 9 August 1979, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 17 August 1979, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 28 August 1979, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge UOTHC.  He had 5 months and 7 days of creditable active service and 36 days of lost time.

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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 2 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 entered active duty on 16 February 1979 and was discharged on 28 August 1979, for a total of 
6 months and 13 days of service.  However, during the same timeframe he incurred 36 days of lost time, leaving a balance of 5 months and 7 days of active creditable service. Therefore, the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct.

3.  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