MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 22 MAY 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002081468

         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
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member
Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That he was a good soldier while assigned to an armor battalion in Germany, qualifying in gunnery training and passing his skill qualification test (SQT). His company passed inspection by the Inspector General. He trained with a German panzer battalion, qualifying as a sharpshooter with the machine gun. He was assigned to an armor battalion at Fort Benning, Georgia in October 1982, and although he was AWOL for three days for personal reasons, he performed well in his unit, passing the SQT and qualifying in gunnery training. He was promoted to pay grade E-5. In February 1984 he was assigned to an armor battalion in Germany. There were a lot of problems in his unit caused by his commanding officer. There was also a lot of pressure in the company because they were not working as a team. He had some emotional problems, becoming involved with a German lady. He became depressed, had a breakdown and was hospitalized for 30 days. When he returned to his unit, he again became depressed. In June 1985, during a training exercise, he could not concentrate. He decided to leave the camp. He did not want to reject military life, but only to escape the depression he was in. In February 1991 he tried to enlist in the Army Reserve at San Juan, Puerto Rico; however, he failed the physical examination. His intention was to atone for his under other than honorable conditions discharge. He hopes that we understand his situation. He is almost disabled.

The applicant submits a 25 June 2002 statement on his behalf from a minister in Puerto Rico, an educational transcript from the University of the Sacred Heart in Puerto Rico, and a copy of a certificate showing that he completed a study program in electricity on 17 December 1999.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel provided nothing beyond that submitted by the applicant.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for 3 years on 21 November 1979. He completed training and in March 1980 was assigned to an armor battalion in Germany. The applicant reenlisted in the Army for 4 years on 23 July 1982.
In August 1982 he was assigned to an armor battalion at Fort Benning as a tank driver. The applicant was AWOL from 8 October 1982 until his return to duty on 12 October 1982. He received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ on 22 October 1982.

He completed the primary NCO course at Fort Benning on 1 July 1983. He was promoted to pay grade E-5 effective on 1 November 1983.

In March 1984 the applicant was assigned as a senior gunner, later as a senior tank driver, with an armor battalion in Germany.

A 14 November 1984 medical report shows that the applicant was admitted to the in-patient psychiatric unit at the 97th General Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany
on 18 September 1984. That report indicated that the applicant had been having moderately severe anxiety symptoms after he had been told that he had been selected to attend the NCO Academy and that he had agreed to go through that program. After learning that he had been selected, he became extremely worried and had a bad case of the nerves. He stated that he was due for promotion to pay grade E-6 and worried that his school performance would interfere with that promotion. He stated that he had been feeling some symptoms of home sickness and missing his family but that had not really been the problem, and that all his apprehensive symptoms were about attending the NCO Academy. He was admitted and almost immediately adjusted quite well. He became less worried. While he was on the in-patient status, the date that he was supposed to have entered the academy passed and consequently there was a marked diminution of his anxiety symptoms. He was discharged to duty on 10 October 1984, symptomatically improved.

On 21 June 1985 court-martial charges were prepared against the applicant by the applicant's company commander in Germany for AWOL from 6 May 1985 to [a date to be determined], and for violating a lawful general regulation on or about 7 May 1985 by using an unauthorized mode of travel through the German Democratic Republic.

The applicant went AWOL on 6 May 1985. He surrendered to military authorities at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico on 20 July 1985 and was transported to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, pending trial by court-martial.

On 24 July 1985 the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court-martial. He stated that he was making his request of his own free will and had not been subject to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He stated that he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him, and that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation for he had no desire to perform further military service. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant's commanding officer stated that he had interviewed the applicant, who stated that he was aware of the consequences of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and who stated that he desired elimination from the Army. He stated that the applicant acknowledged his AWOL, and that he had personal problems in his relationship with his girlfriend, causing him to become upset, adversely affecting his duty performance. He stated that the applicant indicated that he was unable to cope with the situation and went AWOL. The applicant's commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 9 August 1985 the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged on 20 September 1985. He had 5 years, 7 months, and 16 days of service and 75 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. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3. The Board has taken cognizance of the statement on his behalf, his educational accomplishments, and his good post-service conduct; however, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrants the relief requested.

4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

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 that 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

__RVO__ __SK __ ___GJW_ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081468
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030522
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.