MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  1 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002081209

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In an attached statement he provides a personal history since his discharge where he became an ordained minister and youth pastor.  He goes on to state that an investigation in Korea and in the United States indicated his innocence concerning involvement in the black-market.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty as a supply specialist on 13 January 1976 with 18 months prior Army Reserve service.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 23 October 1980.  There is no other record of disciplinary action against the applicant in the available record.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not in the available records.  The applicant acknowledges in his statement that he was investigated for black-market activities and his commander was going to recommend that he be court-martialed with the added charge of adultery.  He also acknowledges that he requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and thought he would receive a general discharge but he did not.

Orders were issued on 7 June 1984 that reduced the applicant to pay grade E-1 effective 31 May 1984.  The authority cited was Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-11 that provides for reduction to the lowest enlisted grade when the general court-martial convening authority determines that a soldier is to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions.

Effective 14 June 1984, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 8 years, 10 months, and 2 days creditable active duty.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year time limit.

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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offenses he was apparently charged with.

2.  The applicant 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.  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

__tk____  ___kf___  ___mm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081209	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030701	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840614	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A71	
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.