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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he requested a hardship discharge but before it was approved, he was forced to accept a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 August 1979 for 3 years and was discharged at his own request on 25 July 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The highest pay grade he held was E-2.  He had 2750 days of lost time.

On 12 November 1980 he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for three specifications of AWOL and eight specifications of uttering checks without sufficient funds.

On 2 February 1981 he was apprehended and confined by civilian authorities for two misdemeanor counts of extortion.  He was convicted on 26 January 1981 and placed on bail pending sentence.  He failed to report for sentencing on 23 February 1981.

On 23 February 1981 his unit reported him AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 24 March 1981.

On 6 June 1988 he was apprehended by civilian authorities in Ohio and returned to military control the same day.

Charges were preferred against him on 15 June 1988 for AWOL from 23 February 1981 to 6 June 1988 in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  Thereafter, he consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 24 June 1988 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 23 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’s record contains no evidence of an application for hardship discharge.

2.  The Board notes that he 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, there is no evidence to indicate that his request at the time was made under coercion or duress and no evidence that the discharge he received was improper or unjust.

3.  Considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, the issuance of a discharge UOTHC appears appropriate.

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