MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 21 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001063765

         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
Mrs. Phyllis M. Perkins		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: While in the service he was young and did not understand the value of taking responsibility. He was 17 when he enlisted and if he could start all over he would not make a mistake like this again. He has been a pastor for two churches since his discharge, and he submits two letters from reverends in support of his application showing excellent character and good post service conduct.

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

The applicant was enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 1976 for 3 years, at age 17. He was trained as a food service specialist with his first assignment in Korea, where he served until 13 March 1978.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (AD)) incorrectly shows in item 12.a. “Date Entered AD This Period” as
23 August 1978 instead of 23 August 1976.

On 21 June 1978, he received a Special Court-Martial Conviction of absence without leave (AWOL) from 13 April through 1 May 1978 and 5 May through
14 May 1978, failure to appear at morning formation on 16 May 1978 and of breaking restriction on 5 May 1978. He was reduced from Private First Class, pay grade E-3, to Private, E-1, forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for
30 days.

On 29 June 1978, the applicant received punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL from 24 to 27 June 1978. His punishment was forfeiture of pay and 30 days of correctional custody. He did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant was reported AWOL on 18 October 1978 and dropped from the rolls of the Army on 16 November 1978. On 4 May 1982, the applicant was apprehended by civil authority and returned to military control at Fort Sill, OK. On 10 May 1982, general court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for his AWOL.

On 11 May 1982, the applicant was psychiatrically cleared, by appropriate medical authority, for administrative action deemed appropriate by his commander.

On 12 May 1982, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He stated that by submitting his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him. He received counsel and was advised of his rights. He stated that he understood that if his request was accepted he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished a UOTHC discharge certificate. He also acknowledged the effects of a UOTHC discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. His request was approved by appropriate authority with issuance of a UOTHC discharge certificate directed.

The applicant was discharged on 3 June 1982 under the authority cited above, UOTHC, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was separated in pay grade E-1.

There is no evidence to show that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 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. The applicant is not entitled to have his UOTHC discharge upgraded to honorable. He has not shown error or injustice in his case.

2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The applicant's contentions concerning his post service character and that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was almost 20 years of age at the time of his desertion.

4. 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.

5. The Army Review Board Agency Support Division, St. Louis will be requested to correct the applicant’s enlistment date on his DD Form 214 to show 23 August 1976 instead of 23 August 1978, and any other administrative corrections deemed appropriate.

6. 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.

7. 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.

NOTE: The Army Review Board Agency Support Division, St. Louis will be requested to correct item 12.a. of the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show “Date Entered AD This Period” as 23 August 1976 instead of 23 August 1978, and any other administrative corrections deemed appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_jns____ _lds___ _jtm____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063765
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020321
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.