MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 7 August 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082316

         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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member
Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his actions while he was in the service have been dealt with and he has paid the price for his immature decisions; however, he is still being punished for them some 15 years later. He states he requested to be transferred to another unit or to be released from active duty; that his transfer was denied; and that 2 weeks later, he was approached by his first sergeant with discharge orders. He states that he was an excellent soldier during basic and advance training; that no conditions were given for his discharge; and that he was not informed that he would be given a UOTHC. He states that although he has made vast improvements in his life and would appreciate a chance to redeem his standing in his family and the community, his family continues to suffer because of his inability to gain employment with police agencies.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 January 1986 for a period of 3 years, training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12C, Bridge Crewman, and the Army station/command of choice enlistment option. Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded MOS 12C and was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.

On 2 January 1987, the applicant departed his unit absent without leave (AWOL) and remained absent until 22 February 1987.

On 11 March 1987, at the initial summary court-martial hearing, the applicant received a copy of the charge sheet. The applicant was informed of the general nature of the charge (AWOL – 2 January through 22 February 1987) and of his rights before a summary court-martial, to include the absolute right to object to trial by summary court–martial. On 12 March 1987, after being given a reasonable amount of time to decide, the applicant stated that he did not object to trial by summary court-martial.

On 13 March 1987, the applicant was convicted of AWOL. He was sentenced to reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $491.00 pay per month for 1 month, and confinement for 30 days. He was confined to the Fort Gordon Confinement Facility, Fort Gordon, Georgia. The applicant was released from confinement and returned to duty at Fort Stewart on 1 April 1987.

On 11 June 1987, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 28 June 1987 when he surrendered to military authorities. On 7 July 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL from 11 – 29 June 1987 and willfully disobeying a lawful command of a commissioned officer. On 8 July 1987, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant was advised of the effects of a UOTHC discharge and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 and the issuance of a UOTHC.

On 17 July 1987, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC. Accordingly on 24 July 1987, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 5 days of active military service and accruing 71 days of lost time.

On 5 June 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 Board congratulates the applicant on his achievements since departing the Army and understands his frustration over being denied police work. However, the Board does not grant relief based solely on post-service achievement, or for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

2. The Board carefully reviewed all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service as well as his misconduct. The Board determined that his misconduct was pervasive and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant’s misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge.

3. The Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Board also noted that when the applicant was advised of his rights, he was informed of the consequences associated with a chapter 10 discharge, especially that he could receive a UOTHC. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4. 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.

5. 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

__aao___ __tbr___ __mmb___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082316
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19870724
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0200
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.