MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002073966

         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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his discharge, his lawyer advised him that if he did not take the discharge he would be sent to Fort Leavenworth for a long time. He went absence without leave (AWOL) to find his wife, who had left him and moved back to South Carolina. He was 18 years old when he joined the service and his wife wanted him to join the service so she could receive an allotment check. He learned to drink alcohol in the service and when he could not keep up with his wife's fast crowd, she went back to South Carolina. In support of his application he attributes a statement to his mother that states “Her son was scared he was going to Army prison for going AWOL, is the only reason he agreed to the dishonorable discharge. That is where the lawyer told him he would go for a long time and he was a scared kid so he went along with it. Please give him a chance and change his discharge.”

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years, in pay grade E-1, on 17 February 1984.

He completed his basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty 51N10, water treatment specialist.

He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 17 August 1984.

On 15 September 1984, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action was initiated against the applicant for pending Magistrate Court proceedings for driving while intoxicated on Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

On 29 October 1984, he was reported AWOL. On the same day, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was initiated against the applicant due to being AWOL.

On 4 November 1984, he surrendered to military control.

On 19 November 1984, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), for absence from his appointed place of duty. His punishment included forfeiture of pay, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.

On 25 November 1984, he was reported AWOL. On the same day, a Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions was initiated against the applicant due to being AWOL.


On 5 December 1984, the applicant's mother was advised in writing of his AWOL.

On 25 December 1984, he was dropped from the rolls.

On 26 December 1984, he was charged in absentia with 1 specification of AWOL on or about 25 November 1984 and remaining so absent.

On 7 June 1985, he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control.

On 12 June 1985, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and acknowledged that he understood he could receive a discharge UOTHC and the possible effects of this type of discharge.

On 25 June 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged UOTHC in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The commander stated that the applicant advised him that he was aware of the consequences of a discharge UOTHC. The commander also stated that the applicant acknowledged that he departed AWOL due to marital problems. The applicant also stated that he began to drink heavily which caused difficulties in his marriage and his wife left because she did not like his drinking habits. After his wife left, he wanted to reconcile their existing problems, so he went AWOL. The applicant also stated that he desired to be discharged from the service.

On 12 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved his discharge and directed a UOTHC discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. It was also directed that charges against the applicant be dismissed effective the date of discharge.

He was separated on 30 July 1985, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court-Martial. He was credited with 10 months and 27 days total net service and lost time from 29 October 1984 through 3 November 1984 and 25 November 1984 through 6 June 1985.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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, 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable or to any other characterization. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.

2. The applicant’s contentions that he agreed to his discharge because his lawyer advised him that he would be sent to Fort Leavenworth for a long time and that he went AWOL to find his wife have been noted by the Board. However, at the time of the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, he stated to his commander that he went AWOL to reconcile with his wife and of his own admission, he desired and requested to be discharged from the service. There is no indication that his statements were made under coercion or duress.

3. 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.

4. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

5. 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.

6. 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

_RJW____ _KYF___ _RVO___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073966
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020926
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	A70
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.