MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 March 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065535

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

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

APPLICANT STATES:  That while stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii he was placed in a truck driving platoon and his problems began.  He was told to get out of the platoon any way he could, transfer, go absent without leave (AWOL), anything he had to do to get out.  He used his chain of command and was told to hang in there and it would get better.  He also states that he was beaten and harassed and when his second transfer request was denied, he caught a plane and went AWOL.  He submits a detailed letter and a copy of his discharge document in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years as a private, pay grade E-1 on 10 March 1981, with a $2,500.00 enlistment bonus.  His 16 incidents of involvement with police and judicial authorities were waived for enlistment.

He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 10 September 1981.

He completed his training in military occupational specialty 64C (light duty truck driver) and was transferred to the 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks.

He was reported AWOL on 16 December 1981 and dropped from the rolls on 14 January 1982.

He surrendered to military authorities on 17 August 1982.

On 19 August 1982, charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 16 December 1981 to 17 August 1982.  He was 23 years of age at the time.

On 24 August 1982, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He admitted guilt.  He stated that he did not desire further rehabilitation, for he has no desire to perform further military service.  He also acknowledged he understood that he may be discharged UOTHC and receive a UOTHC certificate.  

On 27 August 1982, his command approved his request and recommended a UOTHC discharge.

On 1 September 1982, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed a discharge UOTHC and reduction to pay grade E-1.  

He was separated on 4 October 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, administrative discharge - conduct triable by court-martial.  He was credited with 10 months and 24 days net active service and lost time from 16 December 1981 to 16 August 1982.

On 20 June 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of 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 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 UOTHC 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, upon his transfer to Hawaii, he attained the rank of E-2 and then willfully departed AWOL.  It is also noted that despite the fact that his record had no other blemishes up to that point, the seriousness of his extensive AWOL outweighs any other positive aspect of his service.  The applicant has also not provided evidence to show he was forced to go AWOL from his unit, or that he was beaten and harassed and not permitted to transfer.

3.  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, and he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  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 this requirement.

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

_inw         _gjw_____  _rjw_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065535	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020312	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.