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

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his overall performance and good service was not considered.

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

He was born on 22 December 1959.  He completed his high school GED.  He served honorably in the National Guard from 12 March - 19 June 1980.  On      30 July 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).

On 6 July 1983, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 - 8 June 1983 and for failing to go to his appoint place of duty on three separate occasions.

The applicant was AWOL from 15 - 15 August 1983.

On 28 September 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 9 - 20 September 1983.

On 1 October 1983, the applicant missed deployment movement to Fort Drum, NY.

The applicant was AWOL from 1 - 16 October 1983.

The applicant missed deployment movement on 18 October 1983.

The applicant was AWOL from 19 October - 1 November 1983.

The court-martial charges and most of the Chapter 10 discharge packet are missing.  The following information was obtained from alternate sources.

On 16 November 1983, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 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 apparently submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 November 1983, the applicant’s commanders recommended approval of his request.  His company commander recommended a general discharge; his battalion and brigade commanders recommended a discharge UOTHC.

On 1 December 1983, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 8 December 1983, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade E-1, with a discharge UOTHC, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years,             2 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 43 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, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 3 January 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed 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.  

3.  The applicant contends that his overall performance and good service was not considered in his discharge.  The applicant’s record of Article 15s, AWOLs and missing movements belies this contention by showing that his overall performance was not good.

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




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director