MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078067

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 the character of his "service be change[d] to general."

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that a young German girl came into the barracks with him and was raped.  He states that he had nothing to do with the incident and the woman could not identify him in a "line up."  The applicant states that in spite of having nothing to do with the incident his commander said he was going to "discharge us."  The applicant notes that he was not aware that the character of his discharge would impact on his service benefits.  He states that he was young and dumb and after 20 years he has "paid the price" and now wishes to have his benefits.  The applicant submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He entered active duty on 30 June 1972, less than two months shy of turning 20. The applicant successfully completed training and was assigned to Europe in December 1972 where he performed duties in the supply field.  By April 1973 he had been promoted to pay grade E-3.

Documents associated with the applicant's administrative separation were not included in records available to the Board.  However, an undated document, which was in the applicant's file, indicated that his defense counsel requested "postponement of the initial session of court" to enable the applicant to request a "Discharge for the Good of the Service, under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR [Army Regulation] 635-200."

The applicant's Department of Defense Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates the applicant was discharged "under other than honorable conditions" on 1 October 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  He was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  The applicant was 22 years old at the time 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, voluntarily 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.  

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.  

2.  The Board notes that the applicant was assigned defense counsel who requested a postponement of court action to permit the applicant to request a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The fact that such an action took place supports a conclusion that the applicant likely received counsel regarding the consequences of requesting an administrative separation.  The Board also notes that a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial is a voluntary action the applicant would have had to concur with.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes regularity.

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence that his post service character has been so outstanding or meritorious as to warrant upgrade of his discharge as a matter of equity.

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 that 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

__RVO _   __SK ___  __HBO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078067	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.