ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2002076254
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           17 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076254

	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. Nancy L. Amos | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | | Chairperson
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | | Member
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | | 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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he completed his 3-year enlistment.  The Army erred when it did not add his 3-month extension to his enlistment.  He provides no supporting evidence. 

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 April 1979 for 3 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 72D (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator).

On 15 August 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties as a result of previous indulgence in intoxicating liquor.

On 28 May 1981, the applicant extended his 3-year enlistment for 3 months to qualify for a permanent change of station move to the States.  

On 1 October 1981, the applicant was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4.  

On 2 December 1981, the applicant arrived at Fort Bragg, NC.  

On 4 February 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order to monitor Private L___'s whereabouts.  His punishment was a reduction to Private First Class, E-3, a forfeiture of $100.00 pay, and 14 days extra duty.  He appealed the punishment.  The appeal was approved in part.  The reduction was suspended for 120 days.  

On 9 April 1982, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL).  On 7 July 1982, he was apprehended by civil authorities.  

On 21 July 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 9 April 1982 to on or about 7 July 1982.

On 21 July 1982, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.

On 21 July 1982, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 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 check whether or not he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf and one is not available.  The battalion-level commander's endorsement indicates the applicant stated that his AWOL was due to his inability to adjust to military life.  The applicant had stated that conditions in the battalion were more than he could handle as he felt over supervised and not given the responsibility to do his job.  He also stated that family problems made for additional stress.  He indicated he surrendered to civil authorities as he was tired of running.  

On 23 July 1982, the applicant was placed on excess leave.  

On 25 August 1982, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 14 September 1982, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 3 years, 2 months, and 7 days of creditable active service and had 89 days of lost time and 54 days of excess leave (creditable for service but not for pay and allowances). 

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.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

On 11 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.  

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 this requirement.

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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  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, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

3.  The applicant's 3-year enlistment effectively became a 39-month enlistment the day he signed the oath of extension on 28 May 1981, not on 9 April 1982 when his original enlistment would have otherwise terminated.  It is also noted that his initial enlistment period was not entirely without blemish.

4.  The applicant's 3-month extension is recorded on his DD Form 214 by showing he completed 3 years, 2 months, and 7 days of creditable active service even though 54 days of that time was spent in an excess leave status.

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

__JHL__  __MVT__  ___RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002076254
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/09/14
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 10
DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 110.00
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |