MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 7 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR201066005

         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. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he does not claim any error or injustice on the part of the Army. The Army Discharge Review Board referred him, because he was discharged from service more than 15 years ago. He states that his first mistake was not choosing a court-martial rather than the discharge UOTHC. His second mistake was going absent without leave (AWOL) during his fourth year of active duty. He believes, that was by far his most regrettable, most disgraceful act he ever committed. As a result, he was forbidden from ever entering another U S military installation. He further states that he has no excuse for his actions of 20 years ago, but he would deeply appreciate an opportunity to make amends. The reason that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge is so that he can be a part of America’s defense again. He states that he has a valuable skill to offer in the new war effort. He is highly experienced as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic. He is currently sending résumes to all of the major military defense contractors to work either in the states or overseas, but he is afraid that his current discharge status will prohibit him from working on any military installation, let alone high security bases overseas. He realizes that upgrading his discharge would make him eligible for military service and he has no objections to that either. He would proudly bear arms in our country’s defense. He won’t fail again.

The applicant submits in support of his application, a personal letter of appeal, a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge, a copy of an award of the Army Commendation Medal, a copy of a Certificate of Training and a copy of his Résume.

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

On 9 August 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C10 (Indirect Fire Infantryman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 15 April 1981, while assigned to a unit in Korea, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for having in his possession, Numchucks. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $320.00 pay for 90 days, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 7 April 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of being AWOL from 14 August 1981 to 6 April 1982. The applicant waived a separation medical examination.

On 8 April 1982, the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate.

On 9 April 1982, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily without any coercion, requested a discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offenses charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.

On 19 April 1982, the company commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s extent of AWOL. The applicant was AWOL for 235 days.

On 23 April 1982, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On
5 May 1982, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 5 days of creditable active military service and 235 days of lost time.

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.

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 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.

2. 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, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.

3. Although the applicant has expressed regret for his action; and has submitted a number of documents in support of his application, this Board cannot disregard the fact that the applicant was AWOL for 235 days.

4. Therefore, 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___ __jpi___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066005
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020307
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820505
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp10 . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.7000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.