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

APPLICANT STATES:  His contentions were not submitted. 

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

He was born on 19 February 1971.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 8 August 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army For 4 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 58 (Category III).  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K10 (Armor Crewman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 10 September 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for stealing a protective mask property of the United States Government and for making a false statement.

On 15 September 1992, 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 also acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting his guilt of the charges that were preferred against him.  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 23 September 1992, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 9 October 1992, 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 3 years, 2 months and 2 days of creditable active service.  He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the Kuwait Liberation Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. 

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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 23 February 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'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.  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