MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           19 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075397

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 general and his reentry (RE) code to RE-2.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served in the military for several years.  One incident should not prohibit him from serving again.

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

He served in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 4 August 1992 through 22 May 2000.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 2000 at the rank of specialist four for a period of 4 years and was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

The applicant completed a US Army Recruiting Command Form 1104 (Enlistment Eligibility Questionnaire), as part of a Regular Army enlistment packet.  He indicated that while a member of the ARNG he received punishment for an absent without leave (AWOL) incident.

Charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 June 2001 charging him with AWOL from 6 June through 19 June 2001 and AWOL from 12 February through 20 February 2001, and for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer.

On 30 April 2001, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority.  His punishment was reduction to grade E-3; forfeiture of $284.00 per month for one month, suspension to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 29 November 2001, and extra duty and restriction of 14 days.   He did not appeal the punishment.

A Checklist for Pretrail Confinement reflects that while the applicant was AWOL on 6 June 2001, he attempted to (fraudulently) enlist in the ARNG of Kansas.

On 22 June 2001, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), 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 UOTHC and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He did not submit a statement in his own.

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the applicant be discharged with the issuance of an UOTHC certificate.

On 27 July 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1 with a RE-4 code. He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 14 days of creditable active service and had 21 days of lost time.

On 14 June 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board notified the applicant his request for an upgrade of his discharge had been denied.

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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator Codes, (SPD) provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers separated in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 will be assigned the SPD code of KFS.  The cross-reference table provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers separated with SPD code KFS will be assigned RE-4.

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 provided no information concerning the circumstances that led to his discharge or information concerning post service achievements that would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.  

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.  The evidence of record shows that he was counseled prior to making this voluntary request.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  There is no evidence to show that the charges were dropped for any reason other than to allow him to administratively separate in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The evidence of record shows he had a prior record of misconduct and the chapter 10 was based on more than one incident of misconduct.  The type of discharge and the related RE code given was and still is appropriate.

3.  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:

__mmd__  ____jhl__  ___reb___  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200275397	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.