APPLICANT REQUEST:  The applicant requests, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was constantly harassed; that he had already requested to be discharged; that no one took him seriously and that going absent without leave (AWOL) was the only way out.

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

He was born on 21 March 1960.  He completed 9 years of formal education.  On 25 May 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 35 (Category III).

On 17 August 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 
2 July to 12 August 1977.

On 19 August 1977, a medical examination found the applicant medically qualified for separation.

On 22 August 1977, 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 30 August 1977, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 8 September 1977, he was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge UOTHC.  He had 
2 months and 7 days of creditable active service and 
41 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 5 December 1983, 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 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, in lieu of 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 with no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

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




		David R. Kinneer
		Executive Secretary