MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 13 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002069578

         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
Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member
Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was young and had marital problems that were extremely stressful at the time of his discharge; that he did not consult with legal counsel prior to making his decision to request discharge; that he has matured and realizes the grave mistake that he made and if given a second chance he would serve honorably. In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a copy of his Associates Degree, with a copy of his transcript; and a copy of a statement, dated 28 May 1986, that he submitted in his own behalf at the time of discharge. He indicated in the statement that he was married to a Korean National and that she had not adjusted well to being in the United States. She left Fort Sill, Oklahoma, enroute to Houston, Texas and that he left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status to find her. She did not want to return to Fort Sill; therefore, he remained with her in Texas. Later, she convinced him to turn himself into military authorities at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

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

That he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 19 August 1982. On 9 November 1982, at age 18, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember). Following completion of all required military training; he was awarded MOS 13B and assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas, on 4 April 1983.

The applicant left his unit in an AWOL status from 2-27 December 1983. There is no evidence available to indicate that he was ever punished for this offense.

On 8 March 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order " to change into the proper military uniform" and for failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 15 February 1984. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $162.00 pay and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 30 June 1984, the applicant was assigned to Korea and on 1 September 1984, he was advanced to pay grade E-2.

On 7 May 1985, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully purchasing controlled items in excess of the prescribed limits of the established regulation in November and December 1984. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, extra duty, and restriction.
On 19 August 1985, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The applicant left his unit in an AWOL status from 11 September 1985-25 May 1986.

On 27 May 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the period of AWOL from 11 September 1985-25 May 1986.

On 28 May 1986, the applicant authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging that he had consulted with legal counsel and that he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He also acknowledged that he had been advised that he could receive a UOTHC discharge and that he understood the ramifications and effects of receiving such a discharge. Defense counsel authenticated the statement indicating the same. He also submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 17 June 1986, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for separation with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant's commander cited the reason for his recommendation was that the applicant had become disillusioned with the military and he believed that rehabilitative efforts would be futile.

On 23 June 1986, the separation authority directed that applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge.

On 8 July 1986, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial. He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 19 days of active military service and he had 283 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

There is no evidence available to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge under 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. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was 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 Board also took into consideration the applicant’s age at the time of his enlistment. However, the applicant met all entrance qualification standards, to include age. The Board found no evidence to indicate that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3. The Board also noted the applicant's contention that he had marital problems that were extremely stressful. However, he had many legitimate avenues available to him through which to obtain assistance with his problems without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.

4. Contrary to his claim, the Board noted that the applicant did consult with legal counsel prior to requesting discharge. The Board determined that his 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 Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts surrounding his discharge.

6. Finally, the Board took into consideration the fact that the applicant has matured, has educated himself, and has become a successful citizen since being separated from active duty. The Board commends the applicant for his accomplishments; however, post service accomplishments alone do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fne___ __tsk___ __lem___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069578
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020813
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860708
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Ch 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.6000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.