APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he would like to have the chance to reenter into the Army.

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

He was born on 13 June 1966.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 18 September 1986, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12F10 (Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewmember).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.

On 7 May 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 16 March to 5 May 1987.

On 8 May 1987, 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 13 May 1987, a medical examination found the applicant medically fit for retention.

On 18 May 1987, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 17 June 1987, 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 7 months and 11 days of creditable active service and had 48 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 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.

On 29 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 consulted with legal counsel, and voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.

3.  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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  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