MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 22 JULY 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082193

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member
Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: He has made some mistakes in his lifetime and, in effect, that he was young and not responsible at the time of his separation. He states that he would like his family to have access to Department of Veterans Affairs benefits should anything happen to him. In support of his request he submits three statements, including one from his spouse, attesting to the applicant’s character and noting that he is a good husband, father, and member of his community.

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

He entered active duty on 24 January 1978, at the age of 20, with 11 years of formal education. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

The applicant was briefly assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, where he was promoted to pay grade E-4 in October 1979, and in December 1979 he was reassigned to Korea.

The applicant’s Department of the Army Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) indicates that in November 1980 he was reduced to pay grade E-3. However, the basis for the reduction was not in records available to the Board.

Between 1979 and 1980 the applicant received three letters of commendation, commending him for his performance of duty during various training exercises.

In January 1981 the applicant reported to Fort Dix, New Jersey for training as a motor vehicle operator, in accordance with his reenlistment contract. In March 1981, upon completion of training, he was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana and in September 1981 he was again promoted to pay grade E-4.

In May 1982 and March 1983, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. Following his second record of nonjudicial punishment, in March 1983, the applicant received a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. The bar to reenlistment was based on his two records of nonjudicial punishment, his failure to pay his debts, and his poor duty performance. In July 1983 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a positive urinalysis test. As a result of that action, he was reduced to pay grade E-3.

On 24 August 1983 charges were preferred against the applicant for two counts of distributing marijuana. After charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

The separation authority approved the request and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions. On 4 October 1983 the applicant was separated 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 was 25 years old at the time of his separation.

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.

One of the statements submitted in support of the applicant’s request was from an individual who had known the applicant for 9 years. The author noted that the applicant was a very nice young man, that he was honorable, a hard worker and that he was always willing to lend a helping hand. The second statement, from an individual who had known the applicant for “a number of years” indicated the applicant was “of good nature, character and spirit, very trustworthy and dependable.” The final statement, from the applicant’s spouse, indicated that she and the applicant had been married for 14 years, but that she had known him for 20 years. She states that the applicant “has become a good father of four children and a supporting husband.” She noted that he was a regular church member and that he had done volunteer work “on numerous occasions” for charity organizations, the church, and the mayor’s campaign. The three statements were all rendered in 2002.

In June 1989 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant’s petition to upgrade his discharge.

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 has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. His successful completion of training, promotion to pay grade E-4, on two separate occasions, and letters of commendation, clearly indicates that the applicant was capable of honorable service, in spite of being only 20 plus years old.

2. The fact that the applicant has now come to realize the consequence of his less than honorable discharge, and his contention that he has been a good citizen, have been noted. However, neither factor outweighs the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not, in this case, provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief as a matter of equity.

3. The applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and at the request of the applicant. 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.

4. 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

__JNS __ ___TDH _ ___TL___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082193
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030722
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.