MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 9 September 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002083254

         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:

Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson
Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member
Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		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 an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that all of his life, he has endured a hardship as a result of the UOTHC discharge that he received. He believes it is unjust because he was a minor when he enlisted and he was only 18 years of age when he was separated from the military. He is now 40 years of age, ill and needs veteran’s benefits.

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

On 15 August 1979, the applicant’s legal guardian signed a declaration of consent for him to enlist in the military.

On 17 August 1979, at age 17 years and 8 months, he enlisted in the Regular Army for military occupational specialty (MOS) 68M (Helicopter Weapons System Repairer) and the Special Unit Enlistment Option, Europe. He completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and he was assigned to Fort Eustis, Virginia, for advanced individual training (AIT).

The applicant left his AIT unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status from
11-14 January 1980. On 30 January 1980, he appeared before his commander for the imposition of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for this period of AWOL. He was informed his punishment would include the forfeiture of $104.00 pay per month for 1 month and to serve 7 days at the Correctional Custody Facility (CCF). He was also informed he would report to the CCF on 31 January 1980. He received his end-of-month pay and he disappeared. He was confirmed AWOL after a search of the area.

On 7 February 1980, the applicant returned to military control at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and he was transferred to Army authorities at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He left the PCF in an AWOL status from 12 February-7 April 1980.

On 10 April 1980, the applicant was charged with being AWOL from
11-14 January 1980, from 31 January-6 February 1980, and from 12 February-7 April 1980. On the same date, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. On the same date, he also authenticated a statement with his signature to indicate he did not desire a separation medical examination.



On 11 April 1980, he consulted with legal counsel and 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 was advised that separation under chapter 10 could lead to a UOTHC discharge. He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged he understood the ramifications of receiving a UOTHC discharge. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. On the same date, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending separation.

On 28 April 1980, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that the applicant's request for discharge be approved. The commander stated that the applicant had been unable to adjust to military life and that rehabilitation efforts were considered futile.

On 1 May 1980, the separation authority approved separation with a UOTHC discharge. The highest pay grade that the applicant achieved was private, pay grade E-1.

On 20 May 1980, the applicant was separated with an UOTHC discharge for conduct triable by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 5 months and 20 days of active military service and he had 66 days of recorded lost time due to being AWOL.

There is no evidence in the available records to indicate that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within 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, an UOTHC discharge 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. 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 applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and there is no evidence of any coercion during the discharge process. He has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.

3. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young at the time that he enlisted. However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with a waiver. The Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers who successfully completed their military service obligation.

4. The Board considered the applicant’s entire record of service and was convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both correct.

5. The Board noted the applicant stated he has a medical problem. However, there is no evidence that indicates he had a medical condition that was either incurred or aggravated by active military service. Again, he has provided no evidence to the contrary.

6. The applicant’s current medical problems do not provide a basis for an upgrade of his discharge for veteran's benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for veteran’s benefits.

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

__slp___ __wtm___ __tap___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083254
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030909
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800520
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.6000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.