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

APPLICANT STATES:  That his company commander would not provide him any help with his personal problems.  In support of his request, he provides character reference from his employer and minister.

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

He was involuntarily ordered to active duty for unsatisfactory participation from the Alabama Army National Guard on 31 May 1979.  He was discharged at his own request on 25 February 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 230 days of lost time.

On 31 May 1979 his unit reported him AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls as a deserter.

On 16 January 1980 he was apprehended by civilian authorities in Texas and returned to military control.

Charges were preferred against him on 25 January 1980 for AWOL from 31 May 1979 to 16 January 1980 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Thereafter, he consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was also evaluated psychiatrically and cleared for separation.

On 12 February 1980 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 18 December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

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.

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.  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.

2.  There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of his alleged personal problems.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's apparent good post-service conduct, as described in the letters supporting of his request, this factor alone does not warrant the relief requested.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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