APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his other than honorable discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT STATES: No statement was submitted by the applicant. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 18 August 1959. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 9 March 1983, he enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5. On 28 February 1984, the applicant requested an extension of his enlistment for a period of 14 months. On 2 March 1984, the applicant request was approved. On 26 March 1990, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 25 September to 23 October 1989 and from 15 November 1989 to 26 March 1990. On 29 March 1990, a medical examination found the applicant medically fit for retention. On 2 April 1990, 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 15 May 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request, reduced him to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 31 May 1990, 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 2 years, 11 months and 6 days of creditable active service and had 157 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. On 17 December 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, 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. 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