2. The applicant requests, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant's military records show he was born on 19 July 1953. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 27 March 1979, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 54 (Category III). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31Q10 (Tactical Satellite/Microwave System Operator). On 18 March 1982, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 2 years, 11 months and 21 days of active creditable service. On 19 March 1982, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years. During this enlistment the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal (Second Oak Leaf Cluster), the Good Conduct Medal (Third Award), the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (Second Award), the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and also; during this time frame he was advanced to pay grade E-6. On 18 January 1986, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 3 years and 10 months of creditable active service. On the 19 January 1986, the applicant again reenlisted for 3 years. 4. On 9 June 1988, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two occasions of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 to 28 March 1988 and from 8 to 9 May 1988, for two occasions of leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority and for failure to pay his debt. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $500 pay per month for 2 months and a reduction to pay grade E-5. 5. On 18 August 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 10 June to 17 August 1988. 6. 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 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 the same day the applicant waived a separation physical. 7. The applicant’s military record also indicates that on 18 August 1988, he was again reported as AWOL. On 15 September 1988, he was returned to military control. (However; particulars are missing from his file). 8. On 16 September 1988, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 20 September 1988, the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 9 years 2 months and 13 days of creditable active service and had 101 days of lost time. 9. 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. 10. On 16 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 11. The VA, in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency, generally holds that an individuals who accepts a discharge prior to completion of his complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the VA determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 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. 2. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date. The Board finds no evidence of error or injustice to exist as a result of processing the applicant for discharge under the above cited regulation. 3. The overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge, but in view of the honorable character of his prior terms of service, his honorable discharge on 18 January 1986 should be considered a complete and unconditional separation. 4. The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 18 January 1986 have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding periods of service. 5. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 years, of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 18 January 1986, as other than a complete and unconditional separation from the military service. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 18 January 1986. 2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON