MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 May 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078452

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, the Army did not meet his expectations and that conditions at Fort Benning were not acceptable.  He states that his uniform was stolen from his locker and that he was forced to use a sweat soaked uniform for field exercises that day.  He reports that he saw blatant racism, including a “blanket party” that resulted in injury to a platoon leader, unsanitary conditions in a bathroom and coercion of another soldier to change his MOS.  He says that his discharge does not reflect the dishonorable treatment that he received from the Army.  He has encountered employment problems because of the discharge.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 15 April 1982.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman) at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

While enroute to his first duty station, the applicant went AWOL (absent without leave) on 29 November 1982.  He surrendered to military control on 24 January 1983.

On 26 January 1983 court-martial charges were preferred for 56 days of AWOL.  

After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he was guilty as charged or guilty of a lesser included offense for which he could also receive a punitive discharge and that, as a result of his request, he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.

The discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, on 24 February 1983.  He had 8 months and 15 days of creditable service with 56 days of lost time and 29 days of excess leave.  

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.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Table of Maximum Punishments shows that a punitive discharge is authorized for any AWOL of more than 30 days.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has provided no substantiating evidence to support his contentions.   

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  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.

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

__RVO__  ___SK __  _GJW___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078452	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030522	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Upgrade discharge	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.