RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            25 MARCH 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091540

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | | Chairperson
| Mr. Lester Echols | | Member
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | | Member

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was       discharged under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states that he was told by a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer in Florida that his discharge should have been a general.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  On 4 September 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
3 years. 

2.  On 2 February 1988, at Fort Knox Kentucky, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 June 1987 to 1 February 1988.  

3.  On 12 February 1988, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him, and that he understood the effects of receiving an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  

4.  On 12 February 1988, the appropriate separation authority approved his request and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1, and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

5.  On 11 March 1988, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, with an UOTHC discharge.  His DD Form 214 indicates he had             11 months and 1 day of active service, and 217 days of lost time.

6.  On 21 May 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge

7.  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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural error which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant voluntarily requested separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial.  

2.  There is no evidence to show that the applicant’s discharge should have been general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant was processed out of the Army at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and advised by legal counsel of his rights and the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge.  There is no evidence of the applicant having received legal advice from a JAG officer in Tampa Bay, Florida.

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LLS___  __LE ___  __TEO __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		____Luther L. Santiful______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2003091540
SUFFIX |
RECON | YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED | 20040325
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. |